A Tool for In-depth Analysis of Code Execution Reasoning of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18482v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:56:08 GMT
• Title: A Tool for In-depth Analysis of Code Execution Reasoning of Large Language Models
• Authors: Changshu Liu, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces ExeRScope, a series of tools to analyze the result of code execution reasoning frameworks.<n>Analysis can be generalized to code with similar properties without the urgent need to design more benchmarks.
• Score: 1.644043499620662
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code Executing Reasoning is becoming a new non-functional metric that assesses the ability of large language models (LLMs) in programming tasks. State-of-the-art frameworks (CodeMind or REval) and benchmarks (CruxEval) usually focus on LLM's prediction of a given code's input/output or intermediate variable states/values on limited programs. However, there is no tool for more in-depth analysis of the results. Without such a tool, the observations about LLM's code execution reasoning cannot be generalized to more datasets, preventing the research community and practitioners from devising the next generation of LLMs with better code execution reasoning abilities. This paper introduces ExeRScope, a series of tools and heuristics to analyze the result of code execution reasoning frameworks to understand better the impact of code properties in the studied benchmarks on the code execution reasoning. With such tooling, analysis can be generalized to code with similar properties without the urgent need to design more benchmarks, which is a cumbersome effort.

Related papers

• On Explaining (Large) Language Models For Code Using Global Code-Based Explanations [45.126233498200534]
  Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) have significantly changed the landscape of software engineering (SE) We introduce code rationales (Code$Q$), a technique with rigorous mathematical underpinning, to identify subsets of tokens that can explain individual code predictions. Our evaluation demonstrates that Code$Q$ is a powerful interpretability method to explain how (less) meaningful input concepts (i.e., natural language particle at') highly impact output generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T01:00:45Z)
• Code to Think, Think to Code: A Survey on Code-Enhanced Reasoning and Reasoning-Driven Code Intelligence in LLMs [53.00384299879513]
  In large language models (LLMs), code and reasoning reinforce each other. Code provides verifiable execution paths, enforces logical decomposition, and enables runtime validation. We identify key challenges and propose future research directions to strengthen this synergy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T18:55:42Z)
• SURGE: On the Potential of Large Language Models as General-Purpose Surrogate Code Executors [5.247363735860479]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code-related tasks. Given LLMs' ability to understand and process diverse programs, they present a promising direction for building general-purpose surrogate models. We introduce SURGE, a benchmark with $1160$ problems covering $8$ key aspects. Through empirical analysis of $21$ open-source and proprietary LLMs, we examine scaling laws, data efficiency, and predictive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:38:19Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Perplexed: Understanding When Large Language Models are Confused [3.4208414448496027]
  This paper introduces perplexed, a library for exploring where a language model is perplexed. We conducted a case study focused on Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation using an additional tool we built to help with the analysis of code models called codetokenizer. We found that our studied code LLMs had their worst performance on coding structures where the code was not syntactically correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T22:03:39Z)
• Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We? [25.451857140926943]
  Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs. We propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T05:37:16Z)
• CodeMind: A Framework to Challenge Large Language Models for Code Reasoning [1.4027589547318842]
  We introduce CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) CodeMind supports three code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Dependent Execution Reasoning (DER), and Specification Reasoning (SR)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:24:46Z)
• Efficient Tool Use with Chain-of-Abstraction Reasoning [63.08202389132155]
  Large language models (LLMs) need to ground their reasoning to real-world knowledge.<n>There remains challenges for fine-tuning LLM agents to invoke tools in multi-step reasoning problems.<n>We propose a new method for LLMs to better leverage tools in multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T21:53:30Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job? [13.48555476110316]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in the realm of natural language understanding and programming code processing tasks. This paper offers a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' capabilities in performing code analysis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T22:02:43Z)
• CREATOR: Tool Creation for Disentangling Abstract and Concrete Reasoning of Large Language Models [74.22729793816451]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in utilizing tools, but their ability is limited by API availability. We propose CREATOR, a novel framework that enables LLMs to create their own tools using documentation and code realization. We evaluate CREATOR on MATH and TabMWP benchmarks, respectively consisting of challenging math competition problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:51:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.