SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics
Updated 2 h ago · first seen 12 Sept 2026
paper_01M29X34HB6N03AFM8CFCR02KK
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
- T1 · 2 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11180
- T1 · 2 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 2 h ago
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) coding agents constantly decide whether a version satisfies a constraint such as ^1.2.3 or >=2.0,<3, yet their grasp of version-constraint semantics has never been measured directly. We introduce SemVerBench, the first benchmark of LLM version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems (npm, PEP 440, Cargo): 240 machine-checkable items with unique answers, built author-neutrally from four balanced sources (each ecosystem's official test suite plus three frontier LLM proposers) and labeled by a non-circular two-implementation oracle. Evaluating six frontier models, we find systematic, predictable per-mechanism blind spots: a partial-comparator carry rule (>1.2 means >=1.3.0) traps every model on Cargo (near 60%), and although standard PEP 440 prefix matching is universal, on zero-pad/post-release corner cases GPT-5.1 collapses (0/26) while Claude stays at 97-100% (verified on a 67-item oracle-validated set). Opus significantly outperforms all other models, and Sonnet outperforms the OpenAI models (McNemar). The failures look more like an activation/application gap than a knowledge gap: injecting the rule or a light correct hint recovers most errors, whereas interval decomposition does not, and models are at ceiling on the basic forms of the same rules. An author-stratified analysis finds no statistically significant self-favoritism. Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches ~100%: coding agents should delegate version resolution to a resolver rather than reason about versions in-head.
Authors 2
Qibai Chen, Zeming Liu
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11180
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI, cs.SE
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
2 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Zeming Liu, Qibai Chen
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Large language model (LLM) coding agents constantly decide whether a version satisfies a constraint such as ^1.2.3 or >=2.0,<3, yet their grasp of version-constraint semantics has never been measured directly. We introduce SemVerBench, the first benchmark of LLM version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems (npm, PEP 440, Cargo): 240 machine-checkable items with unique answers, built author-neutrally from four balanced sources (each ecosystem's official test suite plus three frontier LLM proposers) and labeled by a non-circular two-implementation oracle. Evaluating six frontier models, we find systematic, predictable per-mechanism blind spots: a partial-comparator carry rule (>1.2 means >=1.3.0) traps every model on Cargo (near 60%), and although standard PEP 440 prefix matching is universal, on zero-pad/post-release corner cases GPT-5.1 collapses (0/26) while Claude stays at 97-100% (verified on a 67-item oracle-validated set). Opus significantly outperforms all other models, and Sonnet outperforms the OpenAI models (McNemar). The failures look more like an activation/application gap than a knowledge gap: injecting the rule or a light correct hint recovers most errors, whereas interval decomposition does not, and models are at ceiling on the basic forms of the same rules. An author-stratified analysis finds no statistically significant self-favoritism. Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches ~100%: coding agents should delegate version resolution to a resolver rather than reason about versions in-head. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperSemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics
New paper: SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 2 h ago | 2 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.