Title:PLSEMANTICSBENCH: Large Language Models As Programming Language Interpreters
Abstract:As large language models (LLMs) excel at code reasoning, a natural question arises: can an LLM execute programs (i.e., act as an interpreter) purely based on a programming language’s formal semantics? If so, it will enable rapid prototyping of new programming languages and language features. We study this question using the imperative language IMP (a subset of C), formalized via small-step operational semantics (SOS) and rewriting-based operational semantics (K-semantics). We introduce three evaluation sets-Human-Written, LLM-Translated, and Fuzzer- Generated-whose difficult…
Title:PLSEMANTICSBENCH: Large Language Models As Programming Language Interpreters
Abstract:As large language models (LLMs) excel at code reasoning, a natural question arises: can an LLM execute programs (i.e., act as an interpreter) purely based on a programming language’s formal semantics? If so, it will enable rapid prototyping of new programming languages and language features. We study this question using the imperative language IMP (a subset of C), formalized via small-step operational semantics (SOS) and rewriting-based operational semantics (K-semantics). We introduce three evaluation sets-Human-Written, LLM-Translated, and Fuzzer- Generated-whose difficulty is controlled by code-complexity metrics spanning the size, control-flow, and data-flow axes. Given a program and its semantics formalized with SOS/K-semantics, models are evaluated on three tasks ranging from coarse to fine: (1) final-state prediction, (2) semantic rule prediction, and (3) execution trace prediction. To distinguish pretraining memorization from semantic competence, we define two nonstandard semantics obtained through systematic mutations of the standard rules. Across strong code/reasoning LLMs, performance drops under nonstandard semantics despite high performance under the standard one. We further find that (i) there are patterns to different model failures, (ii) most reasoning models perform exceptionally well on coarse grained tasks involving reasoning about highly complex programs often containing nested loop depths beyond five, and surprisingly, (iii) providing formal semantics helps on simple programs but often hurts on more complex ones. Overall, the results show a promise that LLMs could serve as programming language interpreters, but points to the lack of their robust semantics understanding. We release the benchmark and the supporting code at this https URL.
| Subjects: | Programming Languages (cs.PL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2510.03415 [cs.PL] |
| (or arXiv:2510.03415v1 [cs.PL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.03415 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Submission history
From: Aditya Thimmaiah [view email] [v1] Fri, 3 Oct 2025 18:23:26 UTC (1,137 KB)