arXiv:2608. 08266v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code generated by modern language models often reads naturally.
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?
arXiv:2606. 28574v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a large language model (LLM) codes a construct in text as a human annotator would, that agreement makes the LLM a reliable coder.
arXiv:2608. 04439v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made notable progress in code generation, but they still struggle on challenging tasks that require sophisticated algorithms or complex implementations.
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.
arXiv:2505. 13553v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The hallucination of code generation models hinders their applicability to systems requiring higher safety standards.
arXiv:2606. 09577v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as code generators, where silently wrong programs pose real safety and reliability risks.
The paper introduces Program Executability Prediction (PrEx), a task that asks large language models (LLMs) to determine whether a program is semantically valid or invalid and, if invalid, to identify the violated formal rule. To evaluate this, the authors create a dataset of systematically generated invalid programs derived from valid ones and test open‑source coding LLMs across different semantic formalisms, semantic shifts, and program splits (human‑written, LLM‑translated, fuzzer‑generated). Results show that LLMs rely more on pre‑training priors than on the provided semantics, performing poorly on modified semantics and with increasing program complexity.
arXiv:2606. 02430v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-performance computing (HPC) workflows, accelerating scientific discovery through diverse perspectives such as code generation and domain-specific decision-making.
arXiv:2607. 04537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct.
arXiv:2609.21190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring the correctness of LLM-generated code is a core challenge for modern software engineering. Benchmarks for agentic code generation check corr...
Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks.
The paper evaluates how robust large language models are at generating SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) when the underlying RTL code undergoes semantics‑preserving transformations such as operand reordering, identifier renaming, and redundant parenthesization. Using a curated dataset and two open‑source models (Qwen2.5‑Coder‑7B and DeepSeek‑Coder‑V2‑Lite), the authors find that 9.7%–27.0% of behaviors that were correct on the original RTL become incorrect after transformation, revealing significant instability that aggregate accuracy metrics can hide.