<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Reasoning about Program Semantics via Equivalence Checking · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.12466/</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/2502.12466/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>EquiBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models' Reasoning about Program Semantics via Equivalence Checking — mentioned by eslaught</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46684806</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2502.12466:46684806</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:34:59 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s a paper from September 2025 that compares programs for (a) semantic equivalence (do they do the same thing) and (b) syntactic similarity (are the parse trees similar). LLMs are more likely to judge programs (correctly or incorrectly) as being semantically equivalent when they are syntactically similar, even though syntactically similar programs can actually do drastically different things. In fact LLMs are generally pretty bad at program equivalence, suggesting they don&amp;#x27;t really &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot; what programs are doing, even for a fairly mechanical definition of &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot;.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.12466/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
