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.
arXiv:2505. 03818v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on everyday coding tasks, but they can fail on complex tasks that require non-trivial reasoning about program semantics.
arXiv:2607. 18642v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mined code corpora are abundant but uncontrolled: a snippet's semantics, surface "messiness," and difficulty are whatever the wild contained; there is no known-optimal reference to grade against; and any public sample may already sit in a model's training set.
arXiv:2510. 07315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check.
arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
arXiv:2506. 02791v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, code intelligence has gained increasing importance in the field of automated software engineering.
arXiv:2607. 12273v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences.
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.
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.
arXiv:2508. 16131v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code completion entails the task of providing missing tokens given a surrounding context.
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.
arXiv:2606. 10087v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pre-training on raw code teaches syntax but provides sparse signal for diverse real-world task formats.
arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.