Are Large Language Models Robust in Understanding Code Against Semantics-Preserving Mutations?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10443v1
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 16:04:25 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Robust in Understanding Code Against Semantics-Preserving Mutations?
• Abstract summary: We evaluate whether state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) with up to 8B parameters can reason about Python programs or are simply guessing.<n>We apply five semantics-preserving code mutations: renaming variables, mirroring comparison expressions, swapping if-else branches, converting for loops to while, and loop unrolling.<n>We show that some LLMs, such as Llama3.2, produce correct predictions based on flawed reasoning in up to 61% of cases.
• Score: 18.52519530244078
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Understanding the reasoning and robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for their reliable use in programming tasks. While recent studies have assessed LLMs' ability to predict program outputs, most focus solely on the accuracy of those predictions, without evaluating the reasoning behind them. Moreover, it has been observed on mathematical reasoning tasks that LLMs can arrive at correct answers through flawed logic, raising concerns about similar issues in code understanding. In this work, we evaluate whether state-of-the-art LLMs with up to 8B parameters can reason about Python programs or are simply guessing. We apply five semantics-preserving code mutations: renaming variables, mirroring comparison expressions, swapping if-else branches, converting for loops to while, and loop unrolling. These mutations maintain program semantics while altering its syntax. We evaluated six LLMs and performed a human expert analysis using LiveCodeBench to assess whether the correct predictions are based on sound reasoning. We also evaluated prediction stability across different code mutations on LiveCodeBench and CruxEval. Our findings show that some LLMs, such as Llama3.2, produce correct predictions based on flawed reasoning in up to 61% of cases. Furthermore, LLMs often change predictions in response to our code mutations, indicating limited robustness in their semantic understanding.

Related papers

• LLM Reasoning Predicts When Models Are Right: Evidence from Coding Classroom Discourse [0.18268488712787334]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to automatically label and analyze educational dialogue at scale.<n>We investigate whether reasoning generated by LLMs can be used to predict the correctness of a model's own predictions.<n>We analyze 30,300 teacher utterances from classroom dialogue, each labeled by multiple state-of-the-art LLMs with an instructional move construct and an accompanying reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T14:38:13Z)
• Demystifying Errors in LLM Reasoning Traces: An Empirical Study of Code Execution Simulation [7.377446354867118]
  We conduct the first empirical study on runtime behavior inference with large language models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate four state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs and develop a taxonomy with nine categories of inference errors.<n>Using failures in the Computation category as a case study, our experiments show that this approach corrects 58 percent of such errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-28T21:29:09Z)
• Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank [71.09032766271493]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to errors and hallucinations.<n>How to check their outputs effectively and efficiently has become a critical problem in their applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T11:01:10Z)
• Assessing Coherency and Consistency of Code Execution Reasoning by Large Language Models [5.692204231573854]
  This paper proposes CES, a task to evaluate the abilities of LLMs in simulating program execution and using that reasoning in programming tasks.<n>CES introduces the notion of coherence to determine whether the simulation complies with commonsense execution logic, even if the predicted values along the simulations are incorrect.<n>CES also introduces a novel metric to measure reasoning consistency across tests with the same or different prime path coverage in a spectrum: strong, weak, and random.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T18:48:12Z)
• Don't Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluation [14.521056434373213]
  Using large language models as evaluators has expanded to code evaluation tasks.<n>This raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations?<n>We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T04:49:33Z)
• Beyond Chains of Thought: Benchmarking Latent-Space Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) can perform reasoning computations both internally within their latent space and externally.<n>This study introduces a benchmark designed to quantify model-internal reasoning in different domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T18:15:27Z)
• How Accurately Do Large Language Models Understand Code? [4.817546726074033]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in post-development tasks such as code repair and testing.<n> Quantifying code comprehension is challenging due to its abstract nature and the lack of a standardized metric.<n>This paper presents the first large-scale empirical investigation into LLMs' ability to understand code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T05:59:29Z)
• EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Understanding of Program Semantics via Equivalence Checking [55.81461218284736]
  EquiBench is a new benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>It determines whether two programs produce identical outputs for all possible inputs.<n>We evaluate 19 state-of-the-art LLMs and find that the best accuracies are 63.8% and 76.2%, only modestly above the 50% random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:54:25Z)
• Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models [79.76293901420146]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. Our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T23:41:11Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Prompting [87.30837365008931]
  Large language models (LLMs) equipped with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are able to make accurate incremental predictions even on unscalable tasks. This study examines the impact of LLMs' step-by-step predictions on gender bias in unscalable tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T06:50:10Z)
• Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs [65.2379940117181]
  We introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:24Z)
• Mutation-based Consistency Testing for Evaluating the Code Understanding Capability of LLMs [5.549095839198671]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in processing both natural and programming languages. We propose a novel method to assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, particularly focusing on subtle differences between code and its descriptions. We apply different types of code mutations, such as operator replacement and statement deletion, to generate inconsistent code-description pairs. We conduct a case study on the two popular LLMs, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, using the state-of-the-art code generation benchmark, HumanEval-X.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T14:27:43Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• 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 are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification [48.534270563880845]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning ability in several natural language processing tasks. LLMs with chain of thought (CoT) prompting require multi-step prompting and multi-token prediction, which is highly sensitive to individual mistakes. We propose and prove that LLMs also have similar self-verification abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T15:51:52Z)

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.