Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.12357 v2 pith:QKABYW7I submitted 2023-10-18 cs.SE cs.CR

classification cs.SEcs.CR
keywords codellmsanalysislanguageevaluationlargemodelspotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in the realm of natural language understanding and programming code processing tasks. Their capacity to comprehend and generate human-like code has spurred research into harnessing LLMs for code analysis purposes. However, the existing body of literature falls short in delivering a systematic evaluation and assessment of LLMs' effectiveness in code analysis, particularly in the context of obfuscated code. This paper seeks to bridge this gap by offering a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' capabilities in performing code analysis tasks. Additionally, it presents real-world case studies that employ LLMs for code analysis. Our findings indicate that LLMs can indeed serve as valuable tools for automating code analysis, albeit with certain limitations. Through meticulous exploration, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the potential and constraints associated with utilizing LLMs in code analysis, paving the way for enhanced applications in this critical domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CXXCrafter: An LLM-Based Agent for Automated C/C++ Open Source Software Building

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An LLM-driven agent, CXXCrafter, automatically builds 587 of 752 C/C++ open-source projects (78%), beating default build commands (39%) and bare LLMs (32 to 38%).

  2. Comparing Human and LLM Generated Code: The Jury is Still Out!

    cs.SE 2025-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    On 72 Python tasks, GPT-4 code passed 87.3% of tests versus 54.9% for one student's code, but was more complex and showed more severe security issues.

Pith tools