Abstract
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly popular in software engineering and have performed well on different programming tasks. However, it is still difficult to know whether these models truly understand program behavior or whether they mainly rely on patterns learned from their training data. This distinction is particularly important for intermediate representations (IRs), where operations, dataflow, and execution semantics are explicitly represented. In this paper, we introduce MLIRBench, a benchmark for evaluating how LLMs reason about MLIR programs. MLIRBench uses a multi-agent pipeline to generate program mutations, validate their behavior through execution, and construct reasoning tasks from torch and linalg program pairs. The dataset contains 1,768 validated pairs, including 888 linalg pairs and 880 torch pairs, labeled as EQUIV, DIVERGE, or ERROR. We evaluated nine models, including five open-weight and four proprietary models. Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved the highest hard-label accuracy of 92.65% across all 1,768 pairs, counting unsuccessful predictions as incorrect. Across its 1,768 scored predictions, it achieved an aggregate score of 74.18 and a judge-assigned result-behavior score of 5.04/10. These results show that strong semantic classification does not necessarily imply accurate prediction of detailed execution behavior, highlighting a gap in current LLM reasoning over compiler IRs. By exposing this gap through execution-validated program pairs, MLIRBench provides a reproducible foundation for studying semantic reasoning over compiler IRs and related tasks such as program repair and semantic classification.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14881
