Benchmarking Large Language Models on Floating-Point Error Classification
Authors: Lisa Taldir, Muhammad Ahmad Saeed, David Defour, Pablo de Oliveira Castro, Eric Petit
Organizations: LI-PaRAD · Université de Perpignan via Domitia, Perpignan, France · Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, France · Intel Corp., Portland, USA
Abstract
This paper investigates the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to detect and classify floating-point errors statically in software code. We introduce InterFLOPBench, a benchmark of 90 C kernels with 1 130 test samples designed to evaluate LLMs across six categories of floating-point error: cancellation, comparison, division by zero, overflow, underflow and NaN, compared across 14 LLMs. The evaluation framework treats floating-point error detection as a multi-label classification problem and employs the F1-score metric to measure performance. Results demonstrate that latest models (Qwen 3 32b, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Phi 4 Reasoning, DeepSeek R1T2, and gpt-oss 20b and 120b) achieve a performance greater than 0.88 overall F1-score. Performance varies between error categories, between explicit operations such as division by zero (Average F1-score: 0.8479) and more subtle numerical phenomena such as underflow (Average F1-score: 0.6059) and cancellation (Average F1-score: 0.6164).
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-performance computing (HPC) workflows, accelerating scientific discovery through diverse perspectives such as code generation and domain-specific decision-making. Yet, how soft errors propagate and affect LLM inference remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we present a comprehensive study on error propagation in LLM inference, enabled by our proposed LLMFI, a configurable and deterministic fault-injection framework. Using LLMFI, we systematically inject faults across three open-weighted LLMs and thirteen representative tasks, covering reasoning, multilingual, mathematical, and coding domains. In addition, we conduct fine-grained case studies that reveal critical vulnerability patterns. Overall, our study yields 17 takeaways that advance the understanding of error propagation in LLM inference and introduces four low-overhead directions to improve reliability through software-only modification, offering practical guidance for future error detection and mitigation.
Count-based F1 is widely used as a proxy for LLM error-detection quality, but this paper shows that it can rise dramatically without a corresponding improvement in span localization, a gap termed F1 Inflation. The paper introduces ErrorBench, a controlled stress-test protocol for prompt-induced count distortion. ErrorBench evaluates six contemporary LLMs under five prompt conditions over 4,290 responses from 143 CoNLL-2014 passages. Under CoNLL-2014 M2-style scoring, anchored prompts produce up to 0.79 points of F1 Inflation, and up to 0.96 under strict matching. A 100-passage replication using the official ERRANT 3.0.0 pipeline and multi-reference scoring reproduces the pattern: averaged over six models, the Blind-to-Anchored prompt shift raises Count-F1 by +0.21 while raising multi-reference ERRANT F0.5 by only +0.04. The study finds larger count responses in highly instruction-compliant GPT/Claude systems and smaller responses in the Gemini family under this stress-test protocol. The findings suggest that LLM proofreading and document-review evaluations should avoid pre-populated error counts and should report span-aware metrics alongside count-based metrics.
The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software development has made distinguishing AI-generated code from human-written code a critical challenge with implications for academic integrity, code quality assurance, and software security. We present LLMSniffer, a detection framework that fine-tunes GraphCodeBERT using a two-stage supervised contrastive learning pipeline augmented with comment removal preprocessing and an MLP classifier. Evaluated on two benchmark datasets - GPTSniffer and Whodunit - LLMSniffer achieves substantial improvements over prior baselines: accuracy increases from 70% to 78% on GPTSniffer (F1: 68% to 78%) and from 91% to 94.65% on Whodunit (F1: 91% to 94.64%). t-SNE visualizations confirm that contrastive fine-tuning yields well-separated, compact embeddings. We release our model checkpoints, datasets, codes and a live interactive demo to facilitate further research.