Can LLMs Reason About Program Semantics? A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs on Formal Specification Inference (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to automate programming tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate LLMs' reasoning abilities on program semantics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark shows that LLMs perform well with simple control flows but struggle with more complex structures, especially loops, even with advanced prompting. |
Similar Papers
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
| Challenge: | Existing work investigating the logical reasoning ability of large language models has focused only on a couple of inference rules of propositional and first-order logics. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a natural language question-answering dataset to evaluate the logical reasoning ability of large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs poorly on a range of natural language questions using chain-of-thought prompting. |
EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models’ Reasoning about Program Semantics via Equivalence Checking (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Anjiang Wei, Jiannan Cao, Ran Li, Hongyu Chen, Yuhui Zhang, Ziheng Wang, Yuan Liu, Thiago S. F. X. Teixeira, Diyi Yang, Ke Wang, Alex Aiken
| Challenge: | EquiBench is a new benchmark to evaluate large language models' ability to reason about program semantics . Unlike natural language, code is executable. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate large language models through equivalence checking . EquiBench consists of 2400 program pairs across four languages and six categories . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark consists of 2400 program pairs across four languages and six categories. |
CriticBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Critique-Correct Reasoning (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | CriticBench is a benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ abilities to critique and refine their reasoning across a variety of tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to assess LLMs' ability to critique and correct reasoning across a variety of tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark examines the performance of 17 large language models in generation, critique, and correction reasoning. |
InductionBench: LLMs Fail in the Simplest Complexity Class (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks focus on deductive reasoning, largely overlooking inductive reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate the inductive reasoning ability of large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark demonstrates that even the most advanced modelw struggle to master the simplest complexity classes within the subregular hierarchy of functions. |
Do Code Semantics Help? A Comprehensive Study on Execution Trace-Based Information for Code Large Language Models (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Code Large Language Models have limited ability to reason about runtime behavior and understand functionality . authors present a generic framework to support integrating semantic information to code task-relevant prompts . |
| Approach: | a study examines the role of trace-based semantic information in boosting supervised fine-tuning and post-phase inference of Code LLMs. |
| Outcome: | a new framework integrates semantic information to code task-relevant prompts . the proposed framework shows that trace-based semantic information boosts reasoning ability . |
GuideBench: Benchmarking Domain-Oriented Guideline Following for LLM Agents (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have been widely deployed as autonomous agents capable of following user instructions and making decisions in real-world applications. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow domain-oriented guidelines . they evaluate Lms on three critical aspects: adherence to diverse rules, robustness to rule updates . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates LLMs on three critical aspects: adherence to diverse rules, robustness to rule updates, and alignment with human preferences. |
RiddleBench: A New Generative Reasoning Benchmark for LLMs (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, but complex reasoning skills require deeper investigation. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark of 1,737 puzzles to test reasoning beyond simple pattern matching. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs poorly when faced with reordered constraints or irrelevant information. |
Do Large Language Models excel in Complex Logical Reasoning with Formal Language? (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on LLMs have focused on formal language, but evaluations of their performance are limited. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a formal language to evaluate LLMs across logical reasoning problems using formal languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms Instruct models in three dimensions, taxonomy of tasks, and format of trajectories, and achieves the best generalization performance across other languages. |
What can Large Language Models Capture about Code Functional Equivalence? (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | SeqCoBench is a benchmark to assess how Code-LLMs can capture code semantics. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to assess how Code-LLMs capture code semantics . they use seqCoBench to evaluate whether they can discern semantically equivalent or different pairs of programs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that they can capture code semantics better than classical match-based retrieval scores. |
ACEBench: A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM Tool Usage (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Chen Chen, Xinlong Hao, Weiwen Liu, Xu Huang, Xingshan Zeng, Shuai Yu, Dexun Li, Yuefeng Huang, Xiangcheng Liu, Wang Xinzhi, Wu Liu
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for evaluating LLMs’ tool usage face several limitations: limited evaluation scenarios, lacking assessments in real multi-turn dialogue contexts; narrow evaluation dimensions, with insufficient detailed assessments of how LLM use tools; and reliance on LLM or real API executions for evaluation, which introduces significant overhead. |
| Approach: | ACEBench is a benchmark for evaluating tool usage in Large Language Models . it categorizes data into three primary types based on evaluation methodology: Normal, Special, and Agent. |
| Outcome: | ACEBench categorizes data into three primary types based on evaluation methodology: Normal, Special, and Agent. |