Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made them widely used for code-related tasks. Identifier names are statistically informative in naturally occurring code, but their information is not always reliable. We investigate whether current LLMs assign disproportionate weight to lexical cues when renaming preserves program structure. We introduce Face/Off, a semantics-preserving identifier-renaming framework, and evaluate progressive naming conditions across multiple models and code-comprehension tasks. Within this framework, lexical overemphasis is pervasive across the evaluated models and primary tasks: performance generally decreases as identifier information is removed or made misleading, and outputs are often directed toward the meanings suggested by misleading names. The pattern persists under representative prompt- and fine-tuning-based interventions, suggesting that lexical overemphasis is an entrenched problem. A type-inference control confirms a boundary: naming effects are smaller when the answer is locally recoverable without the target name. These results do not imply that identifiers are unhelpful; rather, they reveal a systematic vulnerability in how current LLMs balance lexical cues against program structure. Our findings motivate evaluations and modeling methods that preserve the benefits of natural code regularities while keeping conclusions grounded in accurate, formalized code semantics.