Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2509.11686

Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models

Abstract

Code Large Language Models (Code LLMs) have opened a new era in programming with their impressive capabilities. However, recent research has revealed critical limitations in their ability to reason about runtime behavior and understand the actual functionality of programs, which poses significant challenges for their post-training and practical deployment. Specifically, Code LLMs encounter two principal issues: (1) a lack of proficiency in reasoning about program execution behavior, as they struggle to interpret what programs actually do during runtime, and (2) the inconsistent and fragmented representation of semantic information, such as execution traces, across existing methods, which hinders their ability to generalize and reason effectively. These challenges underscore the necessity for more systematic approaches to enhance the reasoning capabilities of Code LLMs. To address these issues, we introduce a generic framework to support integrating semantic information~(e.g., execution trace) to code task-relevant prompts, and conduct a comprehensive study to explore the role of semantic information in enhancing the reasoning ability of Code LLMs accordingly. Specifically, we focus on investigating the usefulness of trace-based semantic information in boosting supervised fine-tuning~(SFT) and post-phase inference of Code LLMs. The experimental results surprisingly disagree with previous works and demonstrate that semantic information has limited usefulness for SFT and test time scaling of Code LLM.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jian Wang, Xiaofei Xie, Qiang Hu, Shangqing Liu, Yi Li. 2025-09-24. Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11686

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE