Evaluating Language Models on Cross-Language Code Functional Equivalence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23961v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 01:41:00 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Language Models on Cross-Language Code Functional Equivalence
• Abstract summary: We introduce PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in CPP, Java, and Python.<n>Using this dataset, we evaluate intra- and inter-language equivalence detection across open-weight and proprietary LLMs.<n>We analyze 81 cases of systematic disagreement in which models incorrectly judge functional equivalence.
• Score: 6.76025470599609
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a variety of code-understanding tasks, leading many to believe that they can reason about program semantics. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on single-language settings or rely on synthetically generated code, raising concerns about whether current results reflect true semantic understanding. Aims: We investigate whether LLMs can accurately judge functional equivalence across different programming languages in human-written code, a setting that requires deeper reasoning beyond superficial similarity. Method: We introduce PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in CPP, Java, and Python. Using this dataset, we evaluate intra- and inter-language equivalence detection across open-weight and proprietary LLMs, selecting GPT-o4-mini as a representative model to assess stability. We then manually analyze 81 cases of systematic disagreement in which models incorrectly judge functional equivalence, examining the code logic and the generated Chain-of-Thought reasoning. Finally, we categorize these failures and compare them across GPT-o4-mini, Claude-Opus-4.7, and Gemini-3-Flash to determine whether they reflect model-specific issues or broader limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results: We identify a difficulty-dependent breakdown in equivalence judgment (harder problems make the model increasingly prone to misclassifying non-equivalent code as equivalent), a model-specific sensitivity to programming language for the best-performing model (particularly a more conservative behavior on Python), and a partial reliance on similarity-based cues. GPT-o4-mini also shows substantial run-to-run instability under identical settings, indicating inconsistent rather than absent capability. Conclusions: Current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across languages.

Related papers

• Is my model perplexed for the right reason? Contrasting LLMs' Benchmark Behavior with Token-Level Perplexity [6.285055089721361]
  We introduce a principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues.<n>Our method enables precise, hypothesis-driven analysis without relying on unstable feature-attribution techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T08:00:55Z)
• When Words Change the Model: Sensitivity of LLMs for Constraint Programming Modelling [1.052782170493037]
  Large language models show impressive results in automatically generating models for classical benchmarks.<n>Many standard CP problems are likely included in the training data of these models.<n>We show that while LLMs can produce syntactically valid and semantically plausible models, their performance drops sharply under contextual and linguistic variation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T10:40:32Z)
• Evaluating Program Semantics Reasoning with Type Inference in System F [5.6064011695311455]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into the software engineering ecosystem.<n>We introduce TF-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM reasoning based on type inference in System F.<n>We construct TF-Bench_pure, a purely semantics-driven variant of TF-Bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T06:57:42Z)
• Tokenization and Representation Biases in Multilingual Models on Dialectal NLP Tasks [7.216732751280017]
  We correlate Tokenization Parity (TP) and Information Parity (IP) as measures of representational biases in pre-trained multilingual models.<n>We compare state-of-the-art decoder-only LLMs with encoder-based models across three tasks: dialect classification, topic classification, and extractive question answering.<n>Our analysis reveals that TP is a better predictor of the performance on tasks reliant on syntactic and morphological cues, while IP better predicts performance in semantic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T12:13:53Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Reasoning about Program Semantics via Equivalence Checking [58.15568681219339]
  We introduce EquiBench, a new benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>This task directly tests a model's ability to reason about program semantics.<n>We evaluate 19 state-of-the-art LLMs and find that in the most challenging categories, 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)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• 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)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)

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.