<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.12357/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.12357/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job? — mentioned by PaulHoule</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38019135</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2310.12357:38019135</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2023 22:26:27 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I could swear I saw this the other day but I couldn’t find it in YOShInOn, here is an older paper which gets results like this for C/C++ but does a lot better with R, see Figure 1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.04477.pdf The results of this kind of eval could be across the board, you could pick out a set of examples worse than what I said (Games, C++) or pick one out that is really good (Algorithms, Ruby) There was this one also https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12357 which showed some pitfalls…. In some case the LLM could say which project the source code was from which meant it had seen it in the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.12357/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
