The paper introduces PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in C++, Java, and Python, to test whether large language models can judge functional equivalence across languages. Using this dataset, the authors evaluate several open-weight and proprietary LLMs, finding that models struggle more with harder problems, show language-specific biases, and rely partly on superficial similarity cues. They also observe run‑to‑run instability in GPT‑o4‑mini, concluding that current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across programming languages.
By Hui Sun, Anderson Uch\^oa, Rohit Gheyi, Wesley K. G. Assun\c{c}\~ao
arXiv:2606. 10933v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based coding agents are usually evaluated in familiar software settings: mainstream languages, common libraries, and public repositories.
By Aman Sharma, Sushrut Thorat, Paras Chopra
arXiv:2606. 20517v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LiveCodeBench (LCB) has recently become a widely adopted benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on code-generation tasks.
By Maria Ivanova, Pavel Zadorozhny, Rodion Levichev, Ivan Petrov, Adamenko Pavel, Ivan Lopatin, Alexey Kutalev, Dmitrii Babaev
The paper investigates whether the tendency of code language models to default to Python when no language is specified is driven by a small, identifiable set of internal components. Using a comprehensive pipeline—including ablation, activation patching, greedy circuit extraction, and significance testing—across 55 model-language configurations, the authors find that this preference is large, grows with model size, and persists after instruction tuning. They also show that the apparent localization of this behavior depends heavily on analysis choices such as component budget and probe design, and that interventions can sometimes alter the model’s output.
By Harsh Kumar, Tanmay Shailesh Joshi, Rahul Maity, Anusa Saha
arXiv:2506. 02791v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, code intelligence has gained increasing importance in the field of automated software engineering.
By Zhen Yang, Hongyi Lin, Yifan He, Junqi Wang, Zeyu Sun, Shuo Liu, Jie Xu, Pengpeng Wang, Zhongxing Yu, Qingyuan Liang
arXiv:2606. 15589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: For tool-augmented language models, comparing natural-language reasoning with code-execution pipelines is difficult because the comparison changes both the intermediate representation and the execution mechanism.
By Terry Tong, Yu Feng, Surbhi Goel, Dan Roth
arXiv:2606. 03852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models often generate code with bugs.
By Yinsheng Yao, Hongxiang Zhang, Weixi Tong, Tianyi Zhang
arXiv:2606. 31159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming software development, yet their use in security-critical contexts raises a key question: do models know when their generated code is insecure?
By Mohammed Latif Siddiq, Md. Nafiu Rahman, Joanna C. S. Santos
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
By Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu
The paper investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle bug fixing compared to human-written patches by analyzing about 3,000 Codeforces submissions. It finds that LLMs often modify more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, and that they solve more problems correctly when generating solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code. The study highlights implications for AI‑assisted programming tools, suggesting a shift toward incremental problem‑solving strategies.
The thesis explores Introspective Uncertainty Estimation (IUE) for large language models (LLMs) in code generation, aiming to determine whether hidden-state representations can indicate functional correctness at both response and line levels. Using LiveCodeBench and BigCodeBench, the study finds that hidden states provide a strong signal for overall correctness, with static single-token probes performing best, while dynamic strategies offer no consistent advantage. Although line-level fault localization is more challenging, a conditional Top‑K ranking approach remains effective, suggesting a two‑stage workflow that first screens responses for risk and then prioritizes line‑level checks.
By Thomas Klassert
arXiv:2609.38612v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As natural language drives more applications, language models increasingly run inside programs as decision components: the program sends them the curre...
By Jhen-Ke Lin, Chung Chun Wang