Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Code Barrier: What LLMs Actually Understand?

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 2504.10557 v1 pith:Q2BSLY63 submitted 2025-04-14 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords codemodelsobfuscationengineeringllmsresearchsemanticunderstanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding code represents a core ability needed for automating software development tasks. While foundation models like LLMs show impressive results across many software engineering challenges, the extent of their true semantic understanding beyond simple token recognition remains unclear. This research uses code obfuscation as a structured testing framework to evaluate LLMs' semantic understanding capabilities. We methodically apply controlled obfuscation changes to source code and measure comprehension through two complementary tasks: generating accurate descriptions of obfuscated code and performing deobfuscation, a skill with important implications for reverse engineering applications. Our testing approach includes 13 cutting-edge models, covering both code-specialized (e.g., StarCoder2) and general-purpose (e.g., GPT-4o) architectures, evaluated on a benchmark created from CodeNet and consisting of filtered 250 Java programming problems and their solutions. Findings show a statistically significant performance decline as obfuscation complexity increases, with unexpected resilience shown by general-purpose models compared to their code-focused counterparts. While some models successfully identify obfuscation techniques, their ability to reconstruct the underlying program logic remains constrained, suggesting limitations in their semantic representation mechanisms. This research introduces a new evaluation approach for assessing code comprehension in language models and establishes empirical baselines for advancing research in security-critical code analysis applications such as reverse engineering and adversarial code analysis.

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. Is "Knowing It's Malicious Enough?" Evaluating LLMs for Fine-Grained Malware Behavior Auditing

    cs.CR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new evaluation framework shows current LLMs are not yet reliable at fine-grained Android malware behavior auditing, with the best model scoring 50.67% on the composite workload metric.

  2. Using Contrastive Learning to Improve Two-Way Reasoning in Large Language Models: The Obfuscation Task as a Case Study

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Contrastive fine-tuning on paired original/obfuscated code improves reverse deobfuscation for variable renaming (39-52% success) where standard fine-tuning gives near 0%, but the broad claim of bidirectional reasoning...

Pith tools