Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How Does Naming Affect LLMs on Code Analysis Tasks?

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 2307.12488 v5 pith:EV6O6IQE submitted 2023-07-24 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords codeanalysisllmstaskslanguagenamingprogrammodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT and BERT, were proposed for natural language processing (NLP) and have shown promising results as general-purpose language models. An increasing number of industry professionals and researchers are adopting LLMs for program analysis tasks. However, one significant difference between programming languages and natural languages is that a programmer has the flexibility to assign any names to variables, methods, and functions in the program, whereas a natural language writer does not. Intuitively, the quality of naming in a program affects the performance of LLMs in program analysis tasks. This paper investigates how naming affects LLMs on code analysis tasks. Specifically, we create a set of datasets with code containing nonsense or misleading names for variables, methods, and functions, respectively. We then use well-trained models (CodeBERT) to perform code analysis tasks on these datasets. The experimental results show that naming has a significant impact on the performance of code analysis tasks based on LLMs, indicating that code representation learning based on LLMs heavily relies on well-defined names in code. Additionally, we conduct a case study on some special code analysis tasks using GPT, providing further insights.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. To Protect the LLM Agent Against the Prompt Injection Attack with Polymorphic Prompt

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Polymorphic Prompt Assembling randomizes per-request system-prompt separators, cutting prompt-injection attack success to as low as 1.83% on GPT-3.5 with 0.06 ms runtime overhead.

Pith tools