Cited by 72Software Engineering ResearchTeaching and Learning ProgrammingTopic Modeling

MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solving

Open access
Islam, Md. Ashraful, Ali, Mohammed Eunus, Parvez, Md Rizwan·2024·Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Code synthesis, which requires a deep understanding of complex natural language (NL) problem descriptions, generation of code instructions for complex algorithms and data structures, and the successful execution of comprehensive unit tests, presents a significant challenge.Thus, while large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive proficiency in natural language processing (NLP), their performance in code generation tasks remains limited.In this paper, we introduce a new approach to code generation tasks leveraging the multi-agent prompting that uniquely replicates the full cycle of program synthesis as observed in human developers.Our framework, MapCoder, consists of four LLM agents specifically designed to emulate the stages of this cycle: recalling relevant examples, planning, code generation, and debugging.After conducting thorough experiments, with multiple LLMs ablations and analyses across eight challenging competitive problem-solving and program synthesis benchmarks-MapCoder showcases remarkable code generation capabilities, achieving their new state-of-the-art (pass@1) results-(HumanEval 93.9%, MBPP 83.1%, APPS 22.0%, CodeContests 28.5%, and xCodeEval 45.3%).Moreover, our method consistently delivers superior performance across various programming languages and varying problem difficulties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.269

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Planning methods organize long-horizon software tasks through decomposition, structural grounding, trajectory search, or workflow orchestration.

    “We therefore review planning methods that organize long-horizon software tasks through decomposition, structural grounding, trajectory search, or workflow orchestration [40, 41, 42, 43, 44]”

    From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

  • In both personalization and specialization, interaction contexts expand far beyond what can be accommodated by prompt-based mechanisms alone.

    “In both dimensions, the interaction contexts of a specific user's long-term history or the vertical tasks like coding (Islam et al., 2024) and web search (He et al., 2024a) expand far beyond what can be accommodated by prompt-based mechanisms alone.”
  • Soft coordination in multi-agent frameworks can be brittle under adversarial prompts, hallucinated critiques, or multi-turn confirmation bias.

    “Such soft coordination can be brittle under adversarial prompts, hallucinated critiques, or multi-turn confirmation bias.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Islam, M. A., Ali, M. E., & Parvez, M. R.
Venue
Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2024
Pages
4912-4944
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402671883
Cited by
63
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 2
FWCI
23.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
code generation, large language models, program synthesis, competitive programming, debugging, unit test generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review