Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models

Summary

arXiv:2609.22097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on coding tasks has primarily focused on performance metrics such as pass@k. As LLMs continue to advance, many models now meet baseline performance requirements, reducing the discriminative power of performance-based evaluation alone. Yet a key question remains largely unexplored: how do LLMs differ in their coding behavior? We propose CLIC (Code Learning for Identification and Comparison), a visual analytics approach that characterizes LLM coding behavior through token-frequency analysis. CLIC represents each code sample as a feature vector of token frequencies and trains an interpretable decision tree to separate two LLMs' code sets. Beyond classification accuracy, we define two new metrics: r…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Junpeng Wang, Yuzhong Chen, Menghai Pan, Uday Singh Saini, Yiwei Cai
Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 12 Aug 2026]

Title:Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models, by Junpeng Wang and 4 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on coding tasks has primarily focused on performance metrics such as pass@k. As LLMs continue to advance, many models now meet baseline performance requirements, reducing the discriminative power of performance-based evaluation alone. Yet a key question remains largely unexplored: how do LLMs differ in their coding behavior? We propose CLIC (Code Learning for Identification and Comparison), a visual analytics approach that characterizes LLM coding behavior through token-frequency analysis. CLIC represents each code sample as a feature vector of token frequencies and trains an interpretable decision tree to separate two LLMs' code sets. Beyond classification accuracy, we define two new metrics: robustness, which measures whether the two LLMs remain distinguishable as their most-discriminative tokens are progressively removed, and concentration, which measures whether the difference is driven by a few dominant tokens or spread across many. Interpreting numerous pairwise comparisons (across LLM pairs, tasks, and tokenization levels) and tracing the full analytical chain form an inherently multi-scale, hypothesis-driven exploration task. We therefore develop an interactive visual analytics system to navigate the comparison landscape, identify pairs of interest, and drill down into discriminative tokens and their code contexts. Case studies comparing 10 LLMs across 22 Kaggle ML tasks reveal actionable insights for LLM selection and prompt engineering.

Comments: 11 pages, 9 figures

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.22097 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.22097v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.22097

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Junpeng Wang [view email] [v1] Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:48:45 UTC (3,017 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models, by Junpeng Wang and 4 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG cs.SE

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.22097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on coding tasks has primarily focused on performance metrics such as pass@k. As LLMs…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.