Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11686v3
• Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 07:06:41 GMT
• Title: Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models
• Authors: Jian Wang, Xiaofei Xie, Qiang Hu, Shangqing Liu, Yi Li,
• Abstract summary: We focus on investigating the usefulness of trace-based semantic information in boosting supervised fine-tuning(SFT) and post-phase inference of Code LLMs.<n>The experimental results surprisingly disagree with previous works and demonstrate that semantic information has limited usefulness for SFT and test time scaling of Code LLM.
• Score: 24.14163275602762
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code Large Language Models (Code LLMs) have opened a new era in programming with their impressive capabilities. However, recent research has revealed critical limitations in their ability to reason about runtime behavior and understand the actual functionality of programs, which poses significant challenges for their post-training and practical deployment. Specifically, Code LLMs encounter two principal issues: (1) a lack of proficiency in reasoning about program execution behavior, as they struggle to interpret what programs actually do during runtime, and (2) the inconsistent and fragmented representation of semantic information, such as execution traces, across existing methods, which hinders their ability to generalize and reason effectively. These challenges underscore the necessity for more systematic approaches to enhance the reasoning capabilities of Code LLMs. To address these issues, we introduce a generic framework to support integrating semantic information~(e.g., execution trace) to code task-relevant prompts, and conduct a comprehensive study to explore the role of semantic information in enhancing the reasoning ability of Code LLMs accordingly. Specifically, we focus on investigating the usefulness of trace-based semantic information in boosting supervised fine-tuning~(SFT) and post-phase inference of Code LLMs. The experimental results surprisingly disagree with previous works and demonstrate that semantic information has limited usefulness for SFT and test time scaling of Code LLM.

Related papers

• CodeSimpleQA: Scaling Factuality in Code Large Language Models [55.705748501461294]
  We present CodeSimpleQA, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the factual accuracy of code LLMs in answering code-related questions.<n>We also create CodeSimpleQA-Instruct, a large-scale instruction corpus with 66M samples, and develop a post-training framework combining supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T14:27:17Z)
• From Code Foundation Models to Agents and Applications: A Practical Guide to Code Intelligence [150.3696990310269]
  Large language models (LLMs) have transformed automated software development by enabling direct translation of natural language descriptions into functional code.<n>We provide a comprehensive synthesis and practical guide (a series of analytic and probing experiments) about code LLMs.<n>We analyze the code capability of the general LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, LLaMA) and code-specialized LLMs (StarCoder, Code LLaMA, DeepSeek-Coder, and QwenCoder)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-23T17:09:34Z)
• DebugTA: An LLM-Based Agent for Simplifying Debugging and Teaching in Programming Education [32.673843958049254]
  In programming and Teaching (DT) task, students receive assistance in correcting their erroneous code.<n>We propose DebugTA, a novel teaching agent with specialized tools for standard code retrieval, variable substitution to align reference code, and an external compiler for real-time code analysis.<n>We show that DebugTA consistently improves teaching effectiveness while significantly reducing computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T07:17:18Z)
• Uncovering Systematic Failures of LLMs in Verifying Code Against Natural Language Specifications [0.6813925418351435]
  Large language models (LLMs) have become essential tools in software development, widely used for requirements engineering, code generation and review tasks.<n>In this paper, we uncover a systematic failure of LLMs in evaluating whether code aligns with natural language requirements.<n>Our results reveal that LLMs frequently misclassify correct code implementations as either not satisfying requirements'' or containing potential defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T13:07:26Z)
• 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.<n>Given LLMs' ability to understand and process diverse programs, they present a promising direction for building general-purpose surrogate models.<n>We introduce SURGE, a benchmark with $1160$ problems covering $8$ key aspects.<n>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)
• SpecEval: Evaluating Code Comprehension in Large Language Models via Program Specifications [12.683365968483807]
  We propose SpecEval to evaluate code comprehension in large language models via program specifications.<n>Four specification-related tasks are designed meticulously to assess the capability of LLMs from basic to advanced levels.<n>In particular, four specification-related tasks are designed meticulously to assess the capability of LLMs from basic to advanced levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T16:08:39Z)
• 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)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? [54.667202878390526]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) have the potential to revolutionize our approach to tasks traditionally reliant on external tools like retrieval systems or databases. We introduce LOFT, a benchmark of real-world tasks requiring context up to millions of tokens designed to evaluate LCLMs' performance on in-context retrieval and reasoning. Our findings reveal LCLMs' surprising ability to rival state-of-the-art retrieval and RAG systems, despite never having been explicitly trained for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:28:58Z)
• CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reasoning [6.819757372634151]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to automate programming tasks.<n>This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:24:46Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• 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.