Assessing Coherency and Consistency of Code Execution Reasoning by Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15079v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 18:48:12 GMT
• Title: Assessing Coherency and Consistency of Code Execution Reasoning by Large Language Models
• Authors: Changshu Liu, Yang Chen, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 5.692204231573854
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper proposes CES, a task to evaluate the abilities of LLMs in simulating program execution and using that reasoning in programming tasks. Besides measuring the correctness of variable predictions during execution simulation, 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. This enables CES to rule out suspiciously correct output predictions due to reasoning shortcuts, hallucinations, or potential data leakage. 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. Evaluating 16 LLMs (including three reasoning LLMs) using CES indicates 81.42% coherent execution simulation on HumanEval, 46.92% and 53.08% of which result in correct and incorrect output predictions. Frontier LLMs such as GPT-4 and DeepSeek-R1 have the most incoherent execution reasoning, mostly due to natural language shortcuts. Despite relatively coherent execution simulation, LLMs' reasoning performance across different tests is inconsistent, mostly random (48.87%) or weak (45.37%), potentially explaining their weakness in programming tasks that require path-sensitive program analysis to succeed. We also compare CES with bug prediction/localization/repair, which intuitively requires control- and data-flow awareness. We observe that LLMs barely incorporate execution reasoning into their analysis for bug-related tasks, and their success is primarily due to inherent abilities in pattern matching or natural language shortcuts, if not data leakage. Without reasoning, there is a threat to the generalizability of LLMs in dealing with unseen bugs or patterns in different contexts. CES can be used to vet the suspicious success of LLMs in these tasks systematically.

Related papers

• 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)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• 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)
• SURGE: On the Potential of Large Language Models as General-Purpose Surrogate Code Executors [7.210032327838313]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as surrogate models for code execution prediction.<n>Through extensive analysis of $21$ open-source and proprietary LLMs, we examine scaling laws, data efficiency, and predictive accuracy.<n>Our findings reveal important insights about the feasibility of LLMs as efficient surrogates for computational processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:38:19Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• 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)
• Code Simulation Challenges for Large Language Models [6.970495767499435]
  This work studies to what extent Large Language Models (LLMs) can simulate coding and algorithmic tasks. We introduce benchmarks for straight-line programs, code that contains critical paths, and approximate and redundant instructions. We propose a novel off-the-shelf prompting method, Chain of Simulation (CoSm), which instructs LLMs to simulate code execution line by line/follow the pattern of compilers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T09:23:59Z)
• LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code [6.301373791541809]
  This paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:32:12Z)
• SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting [68.40726892904286]
  We propose a new satisfiability-aided language modeling (SatLM) approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We use an LLM to generate a declarative task specification rather than an imperative program and leverage an off-the-shelf automated theorem prover to derive the final answer. We evaluate SATLM on 8 different datasets and show that it consistently outperforms program-aided LMs in the imperative paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T17:55:51Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)

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.