Not All Code Is Equal: A Data-Centric Study of Code Complexity and LLM Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit strong reasoning abilities, often attributed to their capacity to generate chain-of-thought-style intermediate reasoning. Recent work suggests that exposure to code can further enhance these skills, but existing studies largely treat code as a generic training signal, leaving open the question of which properties of code actually contribute to improved reasoning. To address this gap, we study the structural complexity of code, which captures control flow and compositional structure that may shape how models internalise multi-step reasoning during fine-tuning. We examine two complementary settings: solution-driven complexity, where complexity varies across multiple solutions to the same problem, and problem-driven complexity, where complexity reflects variation in the underlying tasks. Using cyclomatic complexity and logical lines of code to construct controlled fine-tuning datasets, we evaluate a range of open-weight LLMs on diverse reasoning benchmarks. Our findings show that although code can improve reasoning, structural properties strongly determine its usefulness. In 83% of experiments, restricting fine-tuning data to a specific structural complexity range outperforms training on structurally diverse code, pointing to a data-centric path for improving reasoning beyond scaling.

Library Hallucinations in LLMs: Risk Analysis Grounded in Developer Queries

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate code, yet they continue to hallucinate, often inventing non-existent libraries. Such library hallucinations are not just benign errors: they can mislead developers, break builds, and expose systems to supply chain threats such as slopsquatting. Despite increasing awareness of these risks, little is known about how real-world prompt variations affect hallucination rates. Therefore, we present the first systematic study of how user-level prompt variations impact library hallucinations in LLM-generated code. We evaluate six diverse LLMs across two hallucination types: library name hallucinations (invalid imports) and library member hallucinations (invalid calls from valid libraries). We investigate how realistic user language extracted from developer forums and how user errors of varying degrees (one- or multi-character misspellings and completely fake names/members) affect LLM hallucination rates. Our findings reveal systemic vulnerabilities: one-character misspellings in library names trigger hallucinations in up to 26% of tasks, fake library names are accepted in up to 99% of tasks, and time-related prompts lead to hallucinations in up to 84% of tasks. Prompt engineering shows promise for mitigating hallucinations, but remains inconsistent and LLM-dependent. Our results underscore the fragility of LLMs to natural prompt variation and highlight the urgent need for safeguards against library-related hallucinations and their potential exploitation.

LLMs Love Python: A Study of LLMs' Bias for Programming Languages and Libraries

Programming language and library choices are crucial to software reliability and security. Poor or inconsistent choices can lead to increased technical debt, security vulnerabilities, and even catastrophic failures in safety-critical systems. As Large Language Models (LLMs) play an increasing role in code generation, it is essential to understand how they make these decisions. However, little is known about their preferences when selecting programming languages and libraries for different coding tasks. To fill this gap, this study provides the first in-depth investigation into LLM preferences for programming languages and libraries used when generating code. We assess the preferences of eight diverse LLMs by prompting them to complete various coding tasks, including widely-studied benchmarks and the more practical task of generating the initial structural code for new projects (a crucial step that often determines a project's language or library choices). Our findings reveal that LLMs heavily favour Python when solving language-agnostic problems, using it in 90%-97% of cases for benchmark tasks. Even when generating initial project code where Python is not a suitable language, it remains the most-used language in 58% of instances. Moreover, LLMs contradict their own language recommendations in 83% of project initialisation tasks, raising concerns about their reliability in guiding language selection. Similar biases toward well-established libraries further create serious discoverability challenges for newer open-source projects. These results highlight the need to improve LLMs' adaptability to diverse programming contexts and to develop mechanisms for mitigating programming language and library bias.