arXiv:2606. 10087v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pre-training on raw code teaches syntax but provides sparse signal for diverse real-world task formats.
By Ankit Gupta, Aditya Prasad, Rameswar Panda
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.
By Lara Marinov, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa, Junyi Jessy Li, Milos Gligoric
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:2607. 04631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The cost of producing code is rapidly diminishing with increasingly capable AI agents, while quality assurance of generated programs has not kept pace.
By Gabriel Poesia, Simon Henniger, Tzu-Han Hsu, Yilun Du, Nada Amin
The paper introduces SWE-Flux, a repository‑level benchmark designed to test large language models’ ability to reason about runtime behavior. It contains 480 execution‑grounded instances from 12 real Python repositories, with gold answers automatically harvested from instrumented test executions. Evaluation of five LLMs shows the task remains difficult, with the best model achieving only 37% accuracy, and the benchmark can generate challenging variants through input perturbation.
By Hamed Taherkhani, Mohammad Abdollahi, Melika Sepidband, Hridya Dhulipala, Tien N. Nguyen, Hadi Hemmati
arXiv:2602. 20213v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation relies heavily on the quality and robustness of test cases.
By Jingwei Shi, Xinxiang Yin, Jing Huang, Jinman Zhao, Shengyu Tao