Can Large Language Models Recover Semantic Optimization Opportunities That Compilers Miss?

Large language models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in various software engineering tasks, such as code generation and translation. However, a key limitation in their performance may be their (lack of) understanding of programming-language semantics. Even when explicit semantics are given, it remains unclear whether LLMs apply those rules or lean on priors learned during pre-training instead. We study if LLMs lean on priors or given semantics with a novel task--Program Executability Prediction (PrEx)--that asks models to predict whether a program is semantically valid or invalid (and, if invalid, which formal rule it violates) given the program's syntax and operational semantics. Because PrEx requires both valid and invalid programs, we build a dataset with systematically generated invalid transformations derived from valid programs. We evaluate open-source coding LLMs under two semantic formalisms and two semantic shifts across Human-Written, LLM-Translated, and Fuzzer-Generated program splits. Our findings show that LLMs lean on pre-training priors rather than systematically applying the given rules, performing especially poorly on modified semantics and degrading further as program complexity increases. PrEx is available at https://github.com/EngineeringSoftware/prex.

Large language models can generate C code from natural-language descriptions, but resulting programs often contain security vulnerabilities and compilation errors, posing risks for embedded and resource-constrained systems. This work investigates how feedback and retrieval improve reliability of LLM-generated C code. We present an analysis-and-repair workflow that combines compilation diagnostics, CodeQL static analysis, and KLEE symbolic execution with retrieval of prior repair patterns for iterative refinement. Evaluated on 5,000 C programming tasks exercising embedded relevant vulnerabilities, baseline models show substantial reliability gaps, with compilation failure rates up to 46% and security defect rates up to 49%. Our approach improves both metrics. For CodeLlama 7B, security defect rates decrease from 49% to 19% and total CodeQL errors drop from 15,088 to 2,463 (83.7%). For DeepSeek Coder 1.3B, compilation failures are reduced from 42% to 22% and security defects from 35% to 15%. These results show that integrating lightweight analysis tools can improve the safety of LLM-generated code for embedded development.

Code translation is one of the core capabilities of LLMs. However, evaluating the correctness of translations remains difficult, as commonly used metrics such as BLEU measure only syntactic similarity, disregarding program semantics. We propose a novel evaluation methodology for code translation tasks, emphasizing semantic equivalence over surface-level string similarity. Our approach applies established compiler testing methodology to a new domain, allowing the assessment of an LLM fine-tuned for binary lifting tasks (i.e. decompiling binaries to higher-level representations). We introduce a semantic correctness score, defined as the proportion of translations that produce correct execution outcomes, and demonstrate its application by evaluating LLM-based and heuristic decompilers. Our findings show that LLM-based approaches significantly outperform heuristic ones, while BLEU scores show negligible correlation with semantic correctness (r = -0.127 to 0.354), demonstrating that syntactic metrics fail to predict functional accuracy.