Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
Open accessAbstract
We introduce Codex, a GPT language model fine-tuned on publicly available code from GitHub, and study its Python code-writing capabilities. A distinct production version of Codex powers GitHub Copilot. On HumanEval, a new evaluation set we release to measure functional correctness for synthesizing programs from docstrings, our model solves 28.8% of the problems, while GPT-3 solves 0% and GPT-J solves 11.4%. Furthermore, we find that repeated sampling from the model is a surprisingly effective strategy for producing working solutions to difficult prompts. Using this method, we solve 70.2% of our problems with 100 samples per problem. Careful investigation of our model reveals its limitations, including difficulty with docstrings describing long chains of operations and with binding operations to variables. Finally, we discuss the potential broader impacts of deploying powerful code generation technologies, covering safety, security, and economics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
OpenAI's Codex model contains 12 billion parameters, is trained on 54 million GitHub repositories, and can correctly solve 30-70% of novel Python problems.
“OpenAI's Codex model [Chen et al. 2021], which contains 12 billion model parameters and is trained on 54 million software repositories on GitHub, is able to correctly solve 30-70% of novel Python problems”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as [Chen et al. 2021]
Section 3.1 (p. 4) says the training data came from 54 million public GitHub repositories, and Section 3 (p. 4) describes Codex models with up to 12 billion parameters. The Abstract (p. 1) reports 28.8% of HumanEval problems solved with one sample and 70.2% with 100 samples per problem. The claimed 30–70% range is approximately right, but it omits that the upper end required repeated sampling and evaluation on a specific problem set. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCodex was initially tested on the HumanEval dataset containing 164 programming problems, where it is asked to write the function body from a docstring, and achieves 37.7% accuracy with a single generation.
“Codex was initially tested on the HumanEval dataset containing 164 programming problems, where it is asked to write the function body from a docstring [8] and achieves 37.7% accuracy with a single generation.”
From Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The Codex and Codex-S Performance section (p. 2) describes HumanEval as 164 programming problems used to evaluate Python function generation from docstrings. But it reports 37.7% with a single sample for Codex-S, a further fine-tuned model; Codex solves 28.8%. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOffline evaluation of code completion is difficult for longer completions because there are many acceptable alternatives and no straightforward automatic labeling mechanism.
“Offline evaluation where the system is shown a partial snippet of code and then asked to complete it is difficult not least because for longer completions there are many acceptable alternatives and no straightforward mechanism for labeling them automatically [5].”
From Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 2.1 (p. 2) says that match-based metrics cannot account for the large space of functionally equivalent programs, supporting the point that many completions may be acceptable. It does not specifically address longer completions of partial code snippets or say that automatic labeling lacks a straightforward mechanism; instead, it describes unit tests as a way to assess functional correctness. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting works have used the Computational Accuracy metric to evaluate generative code models, but not other metrics regarding characteristics of generated artifacts and run-time efficiency.
“For example, for the Performance category, existing works have used the Computational Accuracy metric to evaluate generative code models [9,15,33,88], but not other metrics we uncovered regarding the characteristics of the generated artifacts and run-time efficiency.”
From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
Section 2.1 (p. 2) supports the use of functional correctness—judging generated code by whether it passes unit tests—which corresponds to the claimed Computational Accuracy metric. It does not establish that existing works omitted other metrics for generated artifacts or run-time efficiency; Appendix D (p. 25) instead notes prior recommendations to assess code-output complexity. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSimilar studies in the code space are limited to the number of few-shot examples in the prompt, and the effect of length of prompt on performance.
“Similar studies in the code space are limited to the number of few-shot examples in the prompt, and the effect of length of prompt on performance [9,15].”
From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
The APPS results (section 3.5, p. 7) evaluate a one-shot prompt, and the Limitations section (p. 10) reports declining performance as synthetic docstrings grow longer. Our copy does not show an investigation of how varying the number of few-shot examples affects performance, nor establish that similar code studies are limited to these two topics. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Offline evaluation is difficult for longer completions because there are many acceptable alternatives and no straightforward mechanism for labeling them automatically.
“Offline evaluation, where the system is shown a partial snippet of code and then asked to complete it, is difficult not least because for longer completions there are many acceptable alternatives and no straightforward mechanism for labeling them automatically.5”
From Measuring GitHub Copilot's Impact on Productivity (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Section 2.1 (p. 2) says reference-matching metrics cannot account for the large space of functionally equivalent programs, supporting the point that many completions may be acceptable. It proposes unit tests for automatically evaluating docstring-based code generation, but does not establish that longer completions of partial code snippets lack a straightforward automatic labeling mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs struggle to produce the correct action code consistently in one shot.
“However, LLMs struggle to produce the correct action code consistently in one shot [41].”
From Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
Table 1 (p. 7) reports a 28.81% pass@1 rate for Codex-12B on HumanEval, supporting the point that it does not consistently generate correct code in a single attempt. The paper evaluates programming solutions, however, not specifically the “action code” named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWith this formulation, pass@k can be estimated with low variance across all k ≤ n.
“With this formulation, we can easily estimate pass@ k with low variance across all k ≤ n .”
From Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model? (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Section 2.1 (p. 3) provides an implementation of the pass@k estimator, and Appendix A (p. 19) says it is unbiased for any number of samples n. The copy does not establish low variance across all k ≤ n; Appendix A instead notes that the unbiased estimator may have slightly higher variance initially. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting coding benchmarks, such as HumanEval, mostly involve self-contained problems that can be solved in a few lines of code.
“However, existing coding benchmarks, such as HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), mostly involve self-contained problems that can be solved in a few lines of code.”
From SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues? (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The paper describes HumanEval as a benchmark of standalone Python functions generated from docstrings (Codex and Codex-S Performance, p. 2) and calls related competitive-programming problems self-contained (Section 4.1, p. 7). It does not establish that existing coding benchmarks mostly have this format or that their problems can generally be solved in a few lines of code. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHumanEval is a diverse collection of 164 problems, where all problems have tests to check correctness, and most have examples or doctests as part of the prompt.
“It is a diverse collection of 164 problems, where all problems have tests to check correctness, and most have examples or doctests as part of the prompt.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Section 2.2 (p. 4) describes HumanEval as 164 handwritten problems spanning several kinds of programming tasks, each with unit tests. Section 3.2 (p. 4) says prompts contain a signature and docstring, but the cited passages do not establish that most prompts include examples or doctests. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious work has found that textual similarity metrics correlate only weakly with code correctness.
“However, previous work has found that textual similarity metrics correlate only weakly with code correctness [1,2,27], highlighting the importance of benchmark suites with unit tests.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Section 2.1 (pp. 2–3) explains why match-based metrics can miss functional equivalence, and Sample Ranking Heuristics (p. 6) finds significant overlap in BLEU scores for correct and incorrect solutions. This supports the concern that textual similarity is an unreliable guide to correctness, but the paper does not establish that textual similarity metrics generally have only a weak correlation with correctness. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCurrent benchmarks for evaluating neural code models focus on only a small subset of programming languages, excluding many popular languages such as Go or Rust.
“Current benchmarks for evaluating neural code models focus on only a small subset of programming languages, excluding many popular languages such as Go or Rust.”
From Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The Codex and Codex-S Performance section (p. 2) says this paper evaluates standalone Python functions, and Related Work (p. 14) describes another Python evaluation dataset. Those examples support the narrower point that some benchmarks focus on Python, but the paper does not establish that current benchmarks generally cover only a small subset of languages or exclude Go and Rust; it also notes a corpus containing multiple popular languages. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDecoder-only code language models achieve exceptional performance on a wide range of tasks.
“Alpha-Code (Li et al., 2022), Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and other works (Nijkamp et al., 2022;Fried et al., 2022;Allal et al., 2023;Christopoulou et al., 2022) have shown that decoder-only code language models achieve exceptional performance on a wide range of tasks.”
From Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The Introduction (p. 1) identifies Codex as a GPT-based model for coding tasks, and the Conclusion (p. 14) reports strong performance on human-written code-generation problems and a similar performance profile for generating docstrings from code. This supports the claim that a code language model performs well, but this paper evaluates chiefly those two tasks rather than demonstrating exceptional performance across a wide range of tasks. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is a trade-off between exploration and exploitation: when the budget is small, low temperature is better; when the budget is large, higher temperature is better.
“Previous works [7,17] have already discovered that there's a trade-off between exploration and exploitation: When the budget is small, it is better to use a low temperature to ensure accuracy on easy problems.When the budget is large, instead, adjusting a higher temperature makes the model more likely to find at least one solution for difficult problems.”
From CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Section 3.3 (pp. 4–5) reports that a lower temperature is optimal for pass@1, while a higher temperature is optimal when many samples are generated because diversity increases the chance of any correct solution. The paper does not establish the citing sentence’s further distinction between accuracy on easy problems and finding solutions to difficult problems. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe diversity and complexity of tasks make it difficult to represent them in a unified yet flexible manner.
“Specifically, each task can have different requirements, operations, and dependencies, which makes it difficult to represent them in a unified yet flexible manner (Chen et al., 2021;Cobbe et al., 2021;Yang et al., 2018;Luo et al., 2018).”
From AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Section D (p. 25) describes varying levels of requirements, variable dependencies, and the difficulty of defining benchmarks for complex code-synthesis specifications. It does not say that tasks in general are difficult to represent in a unified yet flexible manner; that broader conclusion goes beyond the paper’s discussion. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe majority of evaluation protocols largely simplify experimental assumptions and design static, pre-defined rules, with relatively short and isolated task settings.
“The majority of evaluation protocols largely simplify experimental assumptions and design static, pre-defined rules, with relatively short and isolated task settings (Cobbe et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Budzianowski et al., 2018).”
From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Section D (p. 25) says current synthesis methods tackle tightly specified, constrained instances or narrow tasks. Section 4.1 (p. 7) describes self-contained programming problems judged with unit tests. These passages support the characterization of narrow, isolated tasks, but do not establish that a majority of evaluation protocols use simplified assumptions, static rules, or relatively short tasks. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs function by building probabilistic sequences of tokens based on frequency of observed tokens in training data; they act as an autocomplete tool.
“LLMs such as the GPT-type transformers which underpin Codex [3] function by building probabilistic sequences of tokens based on the frequency of observed tokens in the training data [2]. In other words, they act as an 'autocomplete' tool.”
From Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
The Introduction (p. 1) describes language models as sequence-prediction models. Methods (p. 4) says Codex samples tokens to continue a prompt, supporting the autocomplete analogy. The paper does not say that its token probabilities are based on the frequency of observed tokens in the training data. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent large language models have demonstrated strong capabilities in understanding and generating code, achieving strong performance in tasks ranging from competitive programming to repository-level software engineering.
“Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in understanding and generating code, from competitive programming to repository-level software engineering.”
From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The Conclusion (p. 14) reports strong performance generating code for problems comparable to easy interview questions. The paper also evaluates competitive-programming problems, but its APPS results (pp. 6–8) show very low success on competition-level tasks. Its work with GitHub repositories concerns collecting function-level training problems (Section 4.2, pp. 7–8), not demonstrated performance on repository-level software-engineering tasks. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCode-Davinci-002 excels at translating natural language to code and supports code completion as well as code insertion.
“Our experiments mostly target the Code-Davinci model, particularly Code-Davinci-002, which excels at translating natural language to code [14] and supports code completion as well as code insertion 4 .”
From Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization) (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
The Conclusion (p. 14) reports that the paper’s Codex models showed strong performance generating code from natural-language docstrings. But the Introduction (p. 1) says it studies early Codex models, not Code-Davinci-002 specifically. The code-completion and insertion clause is attached to a separate footnote, not this citation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models are increasingly capable of complex programming tasks and are already being used to accelerate AI research.
“Large language models are increasingly capable of complex programming tasks and are already being used to accelerate AI research, from generating training data to serving as programming tools [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].”
From RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The Conclusion (p. 14) reports strong performance on programming problems, and Broader Impacts (p. 10) describes potential uses as a coding aid. But the paper does not establish that these models were already being used to accelerate AI research or to generate training data for that purpose. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe development of evaluations in tandem with language models has substantially contributed to the rapid advancement of these models.
“The development of evaluations in tandem with language models (LMs) has substantially contributed to the rapid advancement of these models [29, 11, 7, 25, 81, 27, 72].”
From SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientists (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
The Evaluation Framework (p. 2) says the authors created HumanEval to benchmark their code models, supporting the point that evaluations were developed alongside models. The paper does not say that this evaluation work substantially contributed to the rapid advancement of language models generally. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHumanEval prompts are code-dense from the first token, with function signatures and type hints appearing early, preserving critical information under aggressive compression.
“HumanEval prompts are code-dense from the first token, with function signatures and type hints appearing early:”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The Methods (p. 4) say HumanEval prompts consist of a header, function signature, and docstring, supporting the claim that signatures appear early. The paper does not establish that prompts are code-dense from the first token, that type hints appear early, or that critical information survives aggressive compression. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBugs introduced by LLM-powered code completion are often more subtle and difficult to revert.
“Other studies further find that the bugs introduced by LLM-powered code completion are often more subtle [4, 34], and difficult to revert [42].”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
Section 7.1 (p. 11) says Codex may suggest solutions that appear correct but do not perform the intended task, supporting the point that generated errors can be subtle. It does not establish that such bugs are often more subtle than other bugs. The separate claim about difficulty reverting them is attached to a different citation and is not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModel-generated code could act destructively due to limitations in model capability or alignment, even if overtly malicious actions are unlikely in current settings.
“While it is highly unlikely that model-generated code will perform overtly malicious actions in our current settings with the Foundation Models (FMs) we employ, such code could still act destructively due to limitations in model capability or alignment (Rokon et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021).”
From Automated Design of Agentic Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Section 7.1 (p. 11) says capability limitations and alignment issues can yield code that appears correct but fails the user's intended task, with possible safety implications. Section 7.2 (p. 11) says significant harm from misalignment is unlikely in current models. The paper does not establish that overtly malicious actions are highly unlikely in the citing authors’ particular FM settings; its assessment concerns Codex and significant harm from misalignment. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLanguage models have made significant strides in coding tasks, solving most tasks in benchmarks such as HumanEval.
“Simultaneously, language models have made significant strides in coding tasks, solving most tasks in benchmarks such as HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021).”
From CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The Introduction (p. 1) describes progress in code generation, and the HumanEval results table (p. 7) shows Codex-12B solving 72.31% of problems when allowed 100 attempts. The claim omits that condition: with one attempt, the same model solved 28.81%, so the paper does not support an unqualified statement that language models solve most HumanEval tasks. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCLEVER includes hand-crafted Lean specifications of 161 programming tasks from the HUMANEVAL benchmark.
“CLEVER includes hand-crafted Lean specifications of 161 programming tasks from the HUMANEVAL benchmark [4].”
From CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Section 2.2 (p. 4) identifies HumanEval as a dataset of 164 hand-written programming problems, supporting the identification of the benchmark. The paper does not establish that CLEVER contains Lean specifications or that it uses 161 of those tasks; searches for CLEVER, Lean, and 161 found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModern LLMs substantially lower the barrier to computational analysis by enabling researchers to describe analytical tasks in plain language and receive executable code in return.
“Modern LLMs substantially lower this barrier by enabling researchers to describe analytical tasks in plain language and receive executable code in return 20,21 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
The Codex and Codex-S Performance section (p. 2) demonstrates that a language model can generate Python functions from natural-language docstrings, with some outputs passing executable unit tests. H.3 (p. 34) suggests code generation could widen access to programming. The paper does not establish that researchers can obtain code for analytical tasks or that the barrier to computational analysis has been substantially lowered. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGitHub Copilot provides code completions using OpenAI Codex, a version of GPT-3 tuned on publicly available source code.
“GitHub Copilot provides code completions using OpenAI Codex [5] , which is a version of GPT-3 that has been tuned on publicly available source code.”
From Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models, derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 on public GitHub repositories.
“Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models [Chen et al. 2021], which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 [Brown et al. 2020] on publicly available Github repositories.”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as [Chen et al. 2021]
HumanEval, MBPP, and APPS score function-level synthesis.
“HumanEval [5], MBPP [3], and APPS [13] score function-level synthesis; CrossCodeEval [11] targets cross-file completion; CodeClash [33] and PinchBench [18] probe further axes of coding capability.”
From Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Code data substantially enhances program synthesis capabilities.
“Code data (e.g., from Stack Exchange and GitHub) substantially enhances program synthesis capabilities [37,38].”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models, which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 on publicly available GitHub repositories.
“Copilot is powered by the OpenAI Codex family of models [Chen et al. 2021], which are derived by fine-tuning GPT-3 [Brown et al. 2020] on publicly available Github repositories.”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al. 2021
OpenAI's Codex model contains 12 billion model parameters and is trained on 54 million software repositories on GitHub, and is able to correctly solve 30-70% of novel Python problems.
“OpenAI's Codex model [Chen et al. 2021], which contains 12 billion model parameters and is trained on 54 million software repositories on GitHub, is able to correctly solve 30-70% of novel Python problems”
From Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al. 2021
Researchers have used software testing to evaluate the behaviour of completions, using competitive programming sites and hand-written programming problems as data sources.
“Due to the diversity of potential solutions to a multi-line completion task, researchers have used software testing to evaluate the behaviour of completions.Competitive programming sites have been used as a source of such data [8,9] as well as hand-written programming problems [5].”
From Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text or synthesizing computer programs.
“Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text (Brown et al., 2020) or synthesizing computer programs (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Multimodal generative AI models exist across text, image, and audio modalities, with examples including Stable Diffusion, MusicLM, Codex, AlphaCode, and GPT-4.
“Prominent examples include Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al. 2022) for text-to-image generation, MusicLM (Agostinelli et al. 2023) for text-to-music generation, Codex (Chen et al. 2021) and AlphaCode (Li et al. 2022) for text-to-code generation, and as mentioned above GPT-4 for image-to-text as well as text-to-text generation (OpenAI 2023a).”
From Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al. 2021
A 12B parameter version of Codex was fine-tuned on 159 GB of deduplicated, filtered Python code from GitHub.
“[1] describe a 12B parameter version of Codex finetuned on 159 GB of deduplicated, filtered Python code from Github.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Codex is a GPT-3 language model fine-tuned on code.
“Codex is a GPT-3 language model fine-tuned on code.[1] describe a 12B parameter version of Codex finetuned on 159 GB of deduplicated, filtered Python code from Github.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
For statistical reliability, we take 200 completions at each temperature and calculate average pass rate using the unbiased sampling estimator presented in [1].
“For statistical reliability, we take 200 completions at each temperature and calculate average pass rate using the unbiased sampling estimator presented in [1].”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
We observe a large improvement on Python for code-davinci-002: a pass@1 rate of 45.9%, compared to 28.8% reported earlier.
“We evaluate a more recent Codex model (codedavinci-002) than the original paper and observe a large improvement on Python: a pass@1 rate of 45.9%, compared to 28.8% reported earlier [1].”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Prior work has shown that sampling the output of a code generation model significantly improves the correctness of generated code.
“Prior work has shown that sampling the output of a code generation model significantly improves the correctness of generated code [1].”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Empirical results show that the sampling settings are optimal for Python.
“Empirical results show these settings are optimal for Python [1], but it is possible that different settings would be better for other programming languages.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
HumanEval and other benchmarks only consist of programming problems in a single language.
“HumanEval [7]-developed by OpenAI for evaluating Codex-and other benchmarks [2,13,20] only consist of programming problems in a single language”
From CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
For HUMANEVALEXPLAIN, they score explanations by having the same model regenerate code from its own explanation and executing the regenerated code, avoiding BLEU/ROUGE.
“Subsequently, the same model is tasked to regenerate the code given only its own explanation.The second step allows us to score this task via code execution and measure pass@k (Chen et al., 2021) instead of evaluating the explanation itself using heuristic-based metrics like BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) or ROUGE (Lin, 2004) which have major limitations”
From OctoPack: Instruction Tuning Code Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
They checked for contamination with HumanEval and did not find any solution or docstring present in COMMITPACKFT.
“We also checked for any contamination with HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) but did not find any solution or docstring present in COMMITPACKFT.”
From OctoPack: Instruction Tuning Code Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Frontier models have achieved impressive performance in mathematics, coding, general knowledge, and commonsense reasoning.
“Frontier models have achieved impressive performance in mathematics, coding, general knowledge, and commonsense reasoning (Hendrycks et al., 2021a;b; Chen et al., 2021; Sakaguchi et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2024).”
From Does Spatial Cognition Emerge in Frontier Models? (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
SELF-REFINE improves initial code generation by up to 13% absolute when applied to strong code models such as Codex.
“In code-generation tasks, SELF-REFINE improves the initial generation by up to absolute 13% when applied to strong code models such as Codex (code-davinci-002; Chen et al., 2021).”
From Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
In tasks with automatic verifiers available, such as math and code, simply sampling LLMs multiple times can significantly improve the pass@k metric and boost the success rate of solving the tasks.
“In tasks with automatic verifiers available, such as math [Hendrycks et al., 2021] and code [Chen et al., 2021], simply sampling LLMs multiple times can significantly improve the pass@k metric and hence boost the success rate of solving the tasks”
From Rethinking Mixture-of-Agents: Is Mixing Different Large Language Models Beneficial? (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The modern pass@k metric and its unbiased estimator are due to Chen et al. [2021], with the earlier idea of counting success when at least one of k test-validated candidates passes under a fixed budget appearing in SPoC [Kulal et al., 2019].
“The modern pass@k metric and its unbiased estimator are due to Chen et al. [2021], with the earlier idea of counting success when at least one of k test-validated candidates passes under a fixed budget appearing in SPoC [Kulal et al., 2019].”
From DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
We report two task-success metrics, both following the pass@k lineage of Chen et al. [2021], whose 'solved if at least one of k sampled candidates passes' framing in turn builds on the budget-constrained candidate-selection idea of Kulal et al. [2019].
“We report two task-success metrics, both following the pass@ k lineage of Chen et al. [2021], whose 'solved if at least one of k sampled candidates passes' framing in turn builds on the budget-constrained candidate-selection idea of Kulal et al. [2019].”
From DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
With four rollouts per task, the fixed-budget pass@4 estimator of Chen et al. [2021] reduces to the indicator that at least one sample passed, so no separate estimator is needed.
“With four rollouts per task this is exactly the fixed-budget pass@4 of Chen et al. [2021]: when the number of samples equals the budget ( n = k = 4), the unbiased pass@ k estimator reduces to the indicator that at least one sample passed, so no separate estimator is needed.”
From DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al. [2021]
Representative products, including ChatGPT, DALL-E-2, Codex and Midjourney, have attained significant attention from society.
“Representative products, including ChatGPT [278], DALL-E-2 [279], Codex [280] and Midjourney [281], have attaining significant attention from society.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [280]
Our approach prioritizes objective evaluation through execution accuracy, providing more rigorous validation than non-executable assessment methodologies.
“Our approach prioritizes objective evaluation through execution accuracy , providing more rigorous validation than non-executable assessment methodologies (Wang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2021).”
From SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Similar behavior holds for benchmarks such as HumanEval, which contains only 164 examples.
“Similar behavior holds for benchmarks such as HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which contains only 164 examples.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Early studies have shown that LLMs exhibit basic reasoning capabilities in mathematics, coding, and general reasoning tasks.
“Early studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) exhibit basic reasoning capabilities in mathematics (Cobbe et al., 2021), coding (Chen et al., 2021), and general reasoning tasks.”
From Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of utilizing large pre-trained language models for code generation in a zero-shot completion manner, conditioned on the provided context.
“Previous studies (Chen et al., 2021;Nijkamp et al., 2022;Chen et al., 2022) have demonstrated the effectiveness of utilizing large pre-trained language models for code generation in a zero-shot completion manner, conditioned on the provided context.”
From RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The study used Pass@1 as the evaluation metric for all RQs rather than code similarity scores, as it is more appropriate for problem-solving and code generation tasks.
“Following existing works evaluating LLM code generation [12, 23] and common evaluation practices over LiveCodeBench and DevEval, we use Pass@1 as the evaluation metric for all RQs rather than code similarity scores, as it is more appropriate for problem-solving and code generation tasks.”
From What Makes In-Context Examples Effective for Code Generation? (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
There is a correlation between LLMs' coding ability and context code leveraging with information elimination.
“The pattern indicates a correlation between the LLMs' coding ability (demonstrated by the performance on code generation benchmarks [12, 90]) and context code leveraging with information elimination.”
From What Makes In-Context Examples Effective for Code Generation? (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
HumanEval+ augments the original HumanEval dataset with GPT-generated test cases and further test cases from mutation genetic algorithms.
“This dataset augments the original HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) dataset with GPT-generated test cases and further test cases from mutation genetic algorithms.”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Among fully open-source options, StarCoder and StarCoder2 ranked highest on two widely used code generation benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP.
“Among the fully open-source options, StarCoder [45] and StarCoder2 [51] ranked highest on two widely used code generation benchmarks, HumanEval [17] and MBPP [6], thereby fulfilling our second criterion.”
From LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
HumanEval comprises 164 programming problems designed to assess functional correctness of synthesized code.
“Chen et al. (2021) introduced HumanEval as a hand-crafted benchmark comprising 164 programming problems designed to assess functional correctness of synthesized code.”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
RLHF-finetuned code models show no comparative advantage when exposed to prompts including buggy code.
“We also briefly investigated whether our RLHF-finetuned code models have any comparative advantage when exposed to prompts including buggy code [Chen et al., 2021], but we did not find any benefits there.”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
HumanEval and MBPP evaluate isolated functions.
“HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) and MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) evaluate isolated functions.”
From SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
HumanEval consists of 164 manually written programming tasks.
“HumanEval consists of 164 manually written programming tasks, each providing a Python function signature and a docstring as input to the model.”
From Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Match-based metrics cannot cover the vast space of equivalent programs.
“but match-based metrics cannot cover the vast space of equivalent programs (Chen et al., 2021).”
From Planetarium: A Rigorous Benchmark for Translating Text to Structured Planning Languages (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
The HumanEval dataset is known to be sensitive to prompt design.
“In this section, we test the HumanEval dataset (Chen et al., 2021), which is known to be sensitive to prompt design.”
From Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
AlphaVerus is the first method to achieve non-zero formally verified code generation performance on a verified version of HumanEval.
“In particular, AlphaVerus is the first method to achieve non-zero formally verified code generation performance on a verified version of HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), thus establishing a starting point for code generation models that generate increasingly complex-yet trustworthy-code.”
From AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
CLEVER builds on HUMANEVAL by adapting 161 of its 164 programming problems for formal verification in Lean 4.
“CLEVER builds on HUMANEVAL [4] by adapting 161 2 of its 164 programming problems for formal verification in Lean 4.”
From CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
In our work, we employ HUMANEVAL to create CLEVER, our formal verification and synthesis benchmark.
“In our work, we employ HUMANEVAL [4] to create CLEVER, our formal verification and synthesis benchmark.”
From CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
LLMs have achieved strong performance in generating source code from natural language descriptions.
“In parallel, LLMs have achieved strong performance in generating source code from natural language descriptions [16, 22, 48, 76, 77].”
From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In code-generation tasks, SELF-REFINE improves the initial generation by up to absolute 13% when applied to strong code models such as Codex.
“In code-generation tasks, SELF-REFINE improves the initial generation by up to absolute 13% when applied to strong code models such as Codex (code-davinci-002; Chen et al., 2021).”
From Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
LLM-based agents can communicate with humans fluently and are often utilized to develop agent-based educational tools.
“Natural science education: LLM-based agents can communicate with humans fluently, often being utilized to develop agent-based educational tools [115,117-119].”
From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [119]
The Introduction (p. 1) discusses language models in natural language processing and program synthesis, but does not describe fluent human communication by LLM-based agents. Searches for educational tools, teaching, and conversational interaction found no passage addressing their use in natural science education. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredToday, safety measures are typically task-specific heuristics.
“Today, safety measures are typically task-specific heuristics”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Section 7.8 (p. 13) recommends a contextual approach to risk mitigation and lists possible safeguards for code-generation models. It does not say that safety measures today are typically task-specific heuristics; searches for that phrase and for task-specific heuristic approaches found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe best pass@10 rate for Codex is at temperature=0.6.
“We set the temperature to 0.6 based on the results reported in the original Codex work [3] as well as in [47], which show that the best pass@10 rate is at temperature=0.6.”
From Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
Section 3.3 (pp. 4–5) says the optimal temperature depends on k and gives values for pass@1 and pass@100, but not pass@10. Figure 5 is described as showing the best temperature for each k; its image is absent from our copy, so the claimed value of 0.6 cannot be checked. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe Stack dataset encompasses over 6TB of code in 358 languages and is extensively used for training large language models due to permissive licensing and wide coverage.
“This dataset, encompassing over 6TB of code in 358 languages, is extensively used for training large language models due to its permissive licensing and wide coverage.”
From Full Line Code Completion: Bringing AI to Desktop (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The Data Collection section (p. 4) describes a different training dataset: 159 GB of filtered Python files from GitHub. Searches for The Stack, 6 TB, 358 languages, and permissive licensing found no passage in our copy addressing those claims or the dataset’s purported use for training. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTop agents now cluster near ceiling-level scores and are often statistically indistinguishable from one another on many widely used benchmarks.
“Top agents now cluster near ceiling-level scores and are often statistically indistinguishable from one another [2, 30, 11, 10, 26].”
From Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Table 1 (p. 7) reports HumanEval pass rates for several code models, with Codex-12B reaching 28.81% pass@1 and 72.31% pass@100; it does not establish ceiling-level clustering. The comparative analysis (p. 6) calls some models roughly equivalent but provides no statistical test of indistinguishability. Searches for benchmark saturation and statistical indistinguishability found no passage addressing the broader claim about top agents now. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCLEVER is a benchmark of 161 problems for end-to-end verified code generation in Lean.
“We introduce CLEVER 1 , a high-quality, curated benchmark of 161 problems for end-to-end verified code generation in Lean.”
From CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited paper describes HumanEval as a set of 164 handwritten programming problems (Section 2.2, p. 4), but that does not establish or refute the claim about CLEVER. Searches for CLEVER, 161 problems, and Lean found no passage in our copy addressing that benchmark. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBAMBOO employs four metrics: accuracy for QA and language modeling, concordance index for sorting, pass@1 for code completion, and precision/recall/F1 for hallucination detection.
“As shown in Table 2, we employ four metrics to evaluate different tasks in our benchmark, i.e., accuracy for question answering and language modeling, concordance index (Shaham et al., 2023) for sorting, pass@1 (Chen et al., 2021) for code completion, and precision, recall, and F1 for hallucination detection.”
From BAMBOO: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Long Text Modeling Capacities of Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Scalable sequence prediction models (Graves, 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017; Child et al., 2019) have become a general-purpose method for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters…”
MethodBERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Following the success of large natural language models (Devlin et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020) large scale Transformers have also been applied towards program synthesis.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDistributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…al., 2019) have become a general-purpose method for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van…”
MethodSelf-citationSequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.3215 · Cited by 17,766 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2019) have become a general-purpose method for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al.”
MethodSelf-citationRoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Following the success of large natural language models (De-vlin et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020) large scale Transformers have also been applied towards program synthesis.”
MethodLearning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Generative models have been shown to encode bias in modalities such as natural language (Brown et al., 2020; Blodgett et al., 2020) and images (Radford et al., 2021), and we find that the same is true of models like Codex that generate code.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationDeep Contextualized Word Representations
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 · Cited by 11,983 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al.,…”
BackgroundHandbook of applied cryptography
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-4512 · Cited by 10,357 · see citing works
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Mirroring what has been found in the case of other language models trained on Internet data (Bender et al., 2021; Blod-gett et al., 2020; Abid et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2020”
BackgroundRepresentation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding
Oord, A. V. D., Li, Y., & Vinyals, O. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.03748 · Cited by 6,242 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple…”
BackgroundWaveNet: a generative model for raw audio
Oord, A. V. D., Dieleman, S., Zen, H., Simonyan, K., Vinyals, O., Graves, A., Kalchbrenner, N., Senior, A., & Kavukcuoglu, K. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.03499 · Cited by 4,911 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…(Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal…”
BackgroundRives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2016239118 · Cited by 3,286 · see citing works
Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1101/622803 · Cited by 3,280 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple modalities (Das et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019; Ramesh et al., 2021; Zellers et al., 2021).”
BackgroundPixel Recurrent Neural NetworksPreprint
van den Oord, A., Kalchbrenner, N., & Kavukcuoglu, K. (2016) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1601.06759 · Cited by 3,111 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…(Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal…”
BackgroundGenerating Sequences With Recurrent Neural Networks
Graves, A. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.0850 · Cited by 2,894 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Scalable sequence prediction models (Graves, 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017; Child et al., 2019) have become a general-purpose method for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters…”
MethodCodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages
Feng, Z., Guo, D., Tang, D., Duan, N., Feng, X., Gong, M., Shou, L., Qin, B., Liu, T., Jiang, D., et al. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.139 · Cited by 2,824 · see citing works
Zero-shot text-to-image generation
Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., & Sutskever, I. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12092 · Cited by 2,417 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple modalities (Das et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019; Ramesh et al., 2021; Zellers et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationwav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations
Baevski, A., Zhou, H., Mohamed, A., & Auli, M. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11477 · Cited by 2,369 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple modalities (Das et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019;…”
BackgroundViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Tasks
Lu, J., Batra, D., Parikh, D., & Lee, S. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.02265 · Cited by 2,109 · see citing works
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 2× · see citing works
“model test loss follows a power law in model size (Kaplan et al., 2020), test loss after code fine-tuning follows a similar power law with functional form ( N 5.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationRecalibrating global data center energy-use estimates
Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Smith, S., & Koomey, J. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aba3758 · Cited by 1,545 · cited 1× · see citing works
“8 While data center energy usage has become much more effi-cient in recent years (Masanet et al., 2020), the production, use, and disposal of semiconductors still imposes environmental and human costs.”
BackgroundHybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory
Graves, A., Wayne, G., Reynolds, M., Harley, T., Danihelka, I., Grabska-Barwińska, A., Colmenarejo, S. G., Grefenstette, E., Ramalho, T., Agapiou, J., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature20101 · Cited by 1,412 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…incorporated inductive biases based on modern computing devices, such as the Neural Turing Machine (Graves et al., 2014), memory networks (Weston et al., 2015; Sukhbaatar et al., 2015), the Neural GPU (Kaiser & Sutskever, 2015), and the differentiable neural computer (Graves et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodBEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformers
Bao, H., Dong, L., Piao, S., & Wei, F. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.08254 · Cited by 1,392 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al.”
BackgroundDeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled AttentionPreprint
He, P., Liu, X., Gao, J., & Chen, W. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.03654 · Cited by 1,224 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A common approach to adjusting the behavior of Trans-formers is to fine-tune large pre-trained models with curated or human-generated datasets of the desired behavior (e.g., Raffel et al. (2020); He et al. (2020)).”
BackgroundUnified rational protein engineering with sequence-based deep representation learning
Alley, E. C., Khimulya, G., Biswas, S., AlQuraishi, M., & Church, G. M. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0598-1 · Cited by 1,131 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple modalities (Das et al.”
BackgroundGenerating Long Sequences with Sparse Transformers
Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., & Sutskever, I. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.10509 · Cited by 1,063 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Scalable sequence prediction models (Graves, 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017; Child et al., 2019) have become a general-purpose method for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters…”
MethodSelf-citationLanguage (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of “Bias” in NLP
Blodgett, S. L., Barocas, S., Daumé III, H., & Wallach, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485 · Cited by 1,050 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Generative models have been shown to encode bias in modalities such as natural language (Brown et al., 2020; Blodgett et al., 2020) and images (Radford et al., 2021), and we find that the same is true of models like Codex that generate code.”
BackgroundMethod(2020) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 1,012 · see citing works
Self-citationSemi-supervised Sequence Learning
Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.01432 · Cited by 994 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…for generation and representation learning in many domains, including natural language processing (Mikolov et al., 2013; Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018;…”
BackgroundRobots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets
Acemoğlu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w23285 · Cited by 924 · see citing works
Genetic Programming III: Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving
Koza, J. R., André, D., Bennett, F. H., & Keane, M. A. (1999) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 763 · see citing works
CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation
Keskar, N. S., McCann, B., Varshney, L. R., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.05858 · Cited by 751 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Another possibility is to label the pre-training data based on code quality, then condition the model on the ’high quality’ label at deployment time (Keskar et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence
CRAWFORD, K. (2021) · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1ghv45t · Cited by 742 · see citing works
DeepCoder: Learning to Write ProgramsPreprint
Balog, M., Gaunt, A. L., Brockschmidt, M., Nowozin, S., & Tarlow, D. (2016) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01989 · Cited by 641 · cited 1× · see citing works
“DeepCoder (Balog et al., 2017) trained a model to predict the functions appearing in source code, which could be used to guide program search.”
MethodJukebox: A Generative Model for MusicPreprint
Dhariwal, P., Jun, H., Payne, C., Kim, J. W., Radford, A., & Sutskever, I. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.00341 · Cited by 602 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhariwal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationAutomating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples
Gulwani, S. (2011) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/1925844.1926423 · Cited by 581 · see citing works
On the naturalness of software
Hindle, A., Barr, E. T., Su, Z., Gabel, M., & Dévanbu, P. (2012) · doi:10.5555/2337223.2337322 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Learning to summarize from human feedback
Stiennon, N., Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Ziegler, D. M., Lowe, R., Voss, C., Radford, A., Amodei, D., & Christiano, P. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.01325 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
Self-citationCodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generation
Lu, S., Guo, D., Ren, S., Huang, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., Blanco, A., Clement, C., Drain, D., Jiang, D., Tang, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.04664 · Cited by 536 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Recently, CodeXGLUE (Lu et al., 2021) aggregated several programming benchmarks, making use of the recently proposed CodeBLEU metric (Ren et al., 2020).”
BackgroundCalibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models
Zhao, T. Z., Wallace, E., Feng, S., Klein, D., & Singh, S. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09690 · Cited by 513 · cited 1× · see citing works
“And research shows that so-called prompt engineering can enable stronger results from AI systems (Zhao et al., 2021).”
BackgroundThe Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling
Gao, L., Biderman, S., Black, S., Golding, L., Hoppe, T., Foster, C., Phang, J., He, H., Thite, A., Nabeshima, N., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.00027 · Cited by 492 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Two recent works similar in spirit to Codex are GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2021) and GPT-J (Wang & Komatsuzaki, 2021), which are trained on The Pile (Gao et al., 2020), a dataset containing text from a variety of sources as well as 8% GitHub code.”
BackgroundMethodCarbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training
Patterson, D., Gonzalez, J., Le, Q., Liang, C., Munguia, L.-M., Rothchild, D., So, D., Texier, M., & Dean, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.10350 · Cited by 486 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Codex, like other large generative models, has an energy footprint from both training and inference (Schwartz et al., 2019; Bender et al., 2021; Patterson et al., 2021).”
BackgroundPersistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Models
Abid, A., Farooqi, M., & Zou, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462624 · Cited by 476 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Mirroring what has been found in the case of other language models trained on Internet data (Bender et al., 2021; Blod-gett et al., 2020; Abid et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2020”
Backgroundcode2seq: Generating Sequences from Structured Representations of CodePreprint
Alon, U., Brody, S., Levy, O., & Yahav, E. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/oasics.slate.2021.14 · Cited by 467 · see citing works
(2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Das, A., Kottur, S., Gupta, K., Singh, A., Jain, D., Moura, J. M. F., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · Cited by 432 · see citing works
An analysis of patch plausibility and correctness for generate-and-validate patch generation systems
Qi, Z., Long, F., Achour, S., & Rinard, M. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/2771783.2771791 · Cited by 420 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, these works used an exact match against a reference instead of functional correctness, citing Qi et al. (2015)’s finding that most of the proposed solutions by genetic search in (Goues et al., 2012) passed through weak test suites by deleting functionality that failed.”
wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations
Baevski, A., Zhou, Y., Mohamed, A., & Auli, M. (2020) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 386 · see citing works
An Empirical Study on Learning Bug-Fixing Patches in the Wild via Neural Machine Translation
Tufano, M., Watson, C., Bavota, G., Penta, M. D., White, M., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3340544 · Cited by 370 · cited 2× · see citing works
“More recent works (Tufano et al., 2019; Drain et al., 2021) considered bug-fixing as neural machine translation from buggy to correct programs.”
BackgroundDataset Security for Machine Learning: Data Poisoning, Backdoor Attacks, and Defenses
Goldblum, M., Tsipras, D., Xie, C., Chen, X., Schwarzschild, A., Song, D., Madry, A., Li, B., & Goldstein, T. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3162397 · Cited by 362 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, the public data should generally be treated as untrusted, as previous work (Goldblum et al., 2021; Schuster et al., 2020) has found that attackers may be able to corrupt training data to trigger specific model behaviors at runtime.”
BackgroundGPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with Mesh-Tensorflow
Black, S., Leo, G., Wang, P., Leahy, C., & Biderman, S. (2021) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5297715 · Cited by 324 · cited 7× · see citing works
“Two recent works similar in spirit to Codex are GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2021) and GPT-J (Wang & Komatsuzaki, 2021), which are trained on The Pile (Gao et al., 2020), a dataset containing text from a variety of sources as well as 8% GitHub code.”
MethodInfluentialLearning to ExecutePreprint
Zaremba, W., & Sutskever, I. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.4615 · Cited by 314 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Learning to Execute (Zaremba & Sutskever, 2014) demonstrated that models could execute simple tasks like addition and memo-rization.”
BackgroundSelf-citationLatent Predictor Networks for Code Generation
Ling, W., Blunsom, P., Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Wang, F., & Senior, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1057 · Cited by 307 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Latent Predictor Networks (Ling et al., 2016) showed that character-level language models could generate working code for implementing Magic the Gathering cards in an online arena, when aided with a latent mode that allows card attributes to be copied into code.”
BackgroundSpreadsheet data manipulation using examples
Gulwani, S., Harris, W. R., & Singh, R. K. (2012) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2240236.2240260 · Cited by 296 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Two early domain-specific datasets used to benchmark neural programming systems were FlashFill (Gulwani, 2011; Gulwani et al., 2012) and Hearthstone (Ling et al., 2016), though the community has trended towards broader and more difficult datasets.”
BackgroundFault localization using execution slices and dataflow tests
Agrawal, H., Horgan, J. R., London, S., & Wong, W. E. (2002) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering · doi:10.1109/issre.1995.497652 · Cited by 288 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Early works used static or dynamic code analysis (Agrawal et al., 1995; Korel & Rilling, 1997), learned association rules (Jeffrey et al., 2009), and genetic programming (Goues et al., 2012) to debug faulty code.”
MethodToward automatic program synthesis
Manna, Z., & Waldinger, R. J. (1971) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/362566.362568 · Cited by 285 · cited 1× · see citing works
“More recently, language models have also fueled progress towards the longstanding challenge of program synthesis (Simon, 1963; Manna & Waldinger, 1971), spurred by the presence of code in large datasets (Husain et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020) and the resulting programming capabilities of language…”
BackgroundTemporal Logics for Hyperproperties
Clarkson, M. R., Finkbeiner, B., Koleini, M., Micinski, K., Rabe, M. N., & Sánchez, C. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54792-8_15 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
Backstabber’s Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attacks
Ohm, M., Plate, H., Sykosch, A., & Meier, M. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52683-2_2 · Cited by 259 · cited 1× · see citing works
“20 Also worrying is the possibility of Codex suggesting malicious or typosquatted packages (Ohm et al., 2020).”
BackgroundNeural GPUs Learn AlgorithmsPreprint
Kaiser, Ł., & Sutskever, I. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.08228 · Cited by 224 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…incorporated inductive biases based on modern computing devices, such as the Neural Turing Machine (Graves et al., 2014), memory networks (Weston et al., 2015; Sukhbaatar et al., 2015), the Neural GPU (Kaiser & Sutskever, 2015), and the differentiable neural computer (Graves et al., 2016).”
MethodSelf-citationMERLOT: Multimodal Neural Script Knowledge ModelsPreprint
Zellers, R., Lu, X., Hessel, J., Yu, Y., Park, J. S., Cao, J., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.02636 · Cited by 224 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020; Baevski et al., 2020), biology (Alley et al., 2019; Rives et al., 2021), and even across multiple modalities (Das et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2019; Ramesh et al., 2021; Zellers et al., 2021).”
BackgroundCodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesis
Ren, S., Guo, D., Lu, S., Zhou, L., Liu, S., Tang, D., Sundaresan, N., Zhou, M., Blanco, A., & Ma, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.10297 · Cited by 214 · cited 2× · see citing works
“For instance, Ren et al. (2020) finds that BLEU has problems capturing semantic features specific to code, and suggests several semantic modifications to the score.”
BackgroundGeneral Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite
Helmuth, T., & Spector, L. C. (2015) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/2739480.2754769 · Cited by 174 · cited 2× · see citing works
“While evaluating code generation is well-studied (Xu et al., 2021; Helmuth & Spector, 2015; Pantridge et al., 2017), many existing metrics measure performance in tightly specified, constrained problem instances (e.g., string manipulation in FlashFill (Gul-wani, 2011)).”
BackgroundMethodFrey, C. B. (2019) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691191959 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Unit Test Case Generation with Transformers and Focal ContextPreprint
Tufano, M., Drain, D., Svyatkovskiy, A., Deng, S. K., & Sundaresan, N. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.05617 · Cited by 158 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Tufano et al. (2020) use Transformers to generate unit tests for code which outperformed commercial offerings.”
MethodThe Economics of Software Quality
Jones, C., & Bonsignour, O. (2011) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 158 · see citing works
In-IDE Code Generation from Natural Language: Promise and Challenges
Xu, F. F., Vasilescu, B., & Neubig, G. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3487569 · Cited by 154 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Most past studies of the impacts of code generation models consider performance on a closed set of tasks in a simulated environment (Xu et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBimodal Modelling of Source Code and Natural Language
Allamanis, M., Tarlow, D., Gordon, A. D., & Wei, Y. (2015) · Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) · Cited by 154 · see citing works
CodeSearchNet Challenge: Evaluating the State of Semantic Code Search
Husain, H., Wang, H.-H., Gazit, T., Allamanis, M., & Brockschmidt, M. (2019) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7908467 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS
Hendrycks, D., Basart, S., Kadavath, S., Mazeika, M., Arora, A., Guo, E., Burns, C., Puranik, S., He, H., Song, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.09938 · Cited by 142 · cited 9× · see citing works
“Most relevant to our evaluation work is the APPS (Hendrycks et al., 2021) benchmark for measuring functional correctness based on problems from the competitive programming website Codeforces.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStructured Generative Models of Natural Source CodePreprint
Maddison, C. J., & Tarlow, D. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1401.0514 · Cited by 129 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Maddison & Tarlow (2014) improved on this setup by learning a state vector used to condition child node expansion.”
BackgroundThe Wrong Kind of AI? Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Labor Demand
Acemoğlu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w25682 · Cited by 129 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Furthermore, as with many tools that substitute investments in capital for investments in labor (or increase the productivity of labor) (Frey, 2019; Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2020a;b), more sophisticated future code generation tools could potentially contribute to the displacement of some programmer or…”
BackgroundContrastive Code Representation Learning
Jain, P., Jain, A., Zhang, T., Abbeel, P., Gonzalez, J., & Stoica, I. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.482 · Cited by 129 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In fact, ContraCode (Jain et al., 2020) leveraged the large space of functionally correct programs to train a contrastive code model, which improved model performance on tasks like type inference.”
BackgroundPyMT5: multi-mode translation of natural language and Python code with transformers
Clement, C. B., Drain, D., Timcheck, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., & Sundaresan, N. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.728 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Barone, A. V. M., & Sennrich, R. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.02275 · Cited by 103 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Barone & Sennrich (2017) proposed a large training and evaluation dataset consisting of Python declarations, docstrings, and bodies scraped from GitHub.”
BackgroundSPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code
Kulal, S., Pasupat, P., Chandra, K., Lee, M., Padon, O., Aiken, A., & Liang, P. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04908 · Cited by 103 · cited 4× · see citing works
“As a consequence, recent works in unsupervised code translation (Lachaux et al., 2020) and pseudocode-to-code translation (Kulal et al., 2019) have turned to functional correctness instead, where a sample is considered correct if it passes a set of unit tests.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialWomen’s Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature
Trinkenreich, B., Wiese, I., Sarma, A., Gerosa, M. A., & Steinmacher, I. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3510460 · Cited by 101 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This could increase open-source developers’ incentive to maintain backward compatibility, which could pose challenges given that open-source projects are often under-resourced (Eghbal, 2020; Trinkenreich et al., 2021).”
BackgroundGenerating High Fidelity Images with Subscale Pixel Networks and Multidimensional UpscalingPreprint
Menick, J., & Kalchbrenner, N. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.01608 · Cited by 94 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Sutskever et al., 2014; Dai & Le, 2015; Peters et al., 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2018), computer vision (Van Oord et al., 2016; Menick & Kalchbrenner, 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), audio and speech processing (Oord et al., 2016; 2018; Dhari-wal et al., 2020;…”
BackgroundYou Autocomplete Me: Poisoning Vulnerabilities in Neural Code CompletionPreprint
Schuster, R., Song, C., Tromer, E., & Shmatikov, V. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.02220 · Cited by 83 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Similarly, the public data should generally be treated as untrusted, as previous work (Goldblum et al., 2021; Schuster et al., 2020) has found that attackers may be able to corrupt training data to trigger specific model behaviors at runtime.”
BackgroundUnsupervised translation of programming languages
Lachaux, M.-A., Roziere, B., Chanussot, L., & Lample, G. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.03511 · Cited by 83 · cited 2× · see citing works
“As a consequence, recent works in unsupervised code translation (Lachaux et al., 2020) and pseudocode-to-code translation (Kulal et al., 2019) have turned to functional correctness instead, where a sample is considered correct if it passes a set of unit tests.”
BackgroundBugFix: A learning-based tool to assist developers in fixing bugs
Jeffrey, D., Feng, M., Gupta, N., & Gupta, R. (2009) · IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) · doi:10.1109/icpc.2009.5090029 · Cited by 82 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Early works used static or dynamic code analysis (Agrawal et al., 1995; Korel & Rilling, 1997), learned association rules (Jeffrey et al., 2009), and genetic programming (Goues et al., 2012) to debug faulty code.”
BackgroundMethodLatent Predictor Networks for Code GenerationPreprint
Ling, W., Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Senior, A., Wang, F., & Blunsom, P. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.06744 · Cited by 82 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Latent Predictor Networks (Ling et al., 2016) showed that character-level language models could generate working code for implementing Magic the Gathering cards in an online arena, when aided with a latent mode that allows card attributes to be copied into code.”
BackgroundApplication of Dynamic Slicing in Program Debugging
Korel, B., & Rilling, J. (1997) · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Experiments with a Heuristic Compiler
Simon, H. A. (1963) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/321186.321192 · Cited by 65 · cited 1× · see citing works
“More recently, language models have also fueled progress towards the longstanding challenge of program synthesis (Simon, 1963; Manna & Waldinger, 1971), spurred by the presence of code in large datasets (Husain et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020) and the resulting programming capabilities of language…”
BackgroundGenerating bug-fixes using pretrained transformers
Drain, D., Wu, C. H., Svyatkovskiy, A., & Sundaresan, N. (2021) · MAPS@PLDI · doi:10.1145/3460945.3464951 · Cited by 49 · cited 2× · see citing works
“More recent works (Tufano et al., 2019; Drain et al., 2021) considered bug-fixing as neural machine translation from buggy to correct programs.”
BackgroundWhat distinguishes great software engineers
Li, P. L., Ko, A. J., & Begel, A. (2020) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-019-09773-y · Cited by 48 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(BLS) classifies computer programmers and software developers separately, where developers are more highly paid than programmers, have more tasks indirectly related to writing and interacting with code, and, in the US, are projected to see greater demand over the next 10 years (Li et al., 2020).”
BackgroundKenton, Z., Everitt, T., Weidinger, L., Gabriel, I., Mikulik, V., & Irving, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.14659 · Cited by 45 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In the literature, a model is defined informally as “intent aligned” with a user if (and only if) the model intends to do what the user wants (Chris-tiano, 2018; Kenton et al., 2021).”
MethodAutomatic programming: The open issue?
O’Neill, M., & Spector, L. C. (2019) · Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines · doi:10.1007/s10710-019-09364-2 · Cited by 25 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Indeed, the synthesis and automatic programming community (O’Neill & Spector, 2019) have recently called for principled benchmarks and grand challenge problems to be made in order to adopt a scientifically rigorous approach to compare synthesis methodologies against.”
Improving Neural Program Synthesis with Inferred Execution Traces
Shin, E. C. R., Polosukhin, I., & Song, D. X. (2018) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Learning Compositional Neural Programs with Recursive Tree Search and Planning
Pierrot, T., Ligner, G., Reed, S., Sigaud, O., Perrin, N., Laterre, A., Kas, D., Beguir, K., & de Freitas, N. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.12941 · Cited by 20 · cited 2× · see citing works
“More recent approaches like the Neural Program Interpreter (Reed & de Freitas, 2016; Shin et al., 2018; Pierrot et al., 2021) and”
MethodOn the difficulty of benchmarking inductive program synthesis methods
Pantridge, E., Helmuth, T., McPhee, N. F., & Spector, L. C. (2017) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO Companion) · doi:10.1145/3067695.3082533 · Cited by 16 · cited 4× · see citing works
“While evaluating code generation is well-studied (Xu et al., 2021; Helmuth & Spector, 2015; Pantridge et al., 2017), many existing metrics measure performance in tightly specified, constrained problem instances (e.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
6 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Aye, G. A., Kim, S., and Li, H. Learning autocompletion from realworld datasets. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) , pp. 131-139, 2021.
- Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., and Amodei, D. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv , abs/2005.14165, 2020. · arXiv
- Carlini, N., Tram` er, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-V oss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., Oprea, A., and Raffel, C. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21) . USENIX Association, August 2021. URL https://www . usenix . org/conference/ usenixsecurity21/presentation/carliniextracting . https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/carlini-extracting
- Crawford, K. The trouble with bias. NIPS 2017 Keynote , 2017. URL https://www . youtube . com/watch?v= fMym BKWQzk .
- Devlin, J., Uesato, J., Bhupatiraju, S., Singh, R., rahman Mohamed, A., and Kohli, P. Robustfill: Neural program learning under noisy i/o. In ICML , 2017.
- Eghbal, N. Working in public: the making and maintenance of open source software . Stripe Press, 2020.
- Goues, C. L., Dewey-Vogt, M., Forrest, S., and Weimer, W. A systematic study of automated program repair: Fixing 55 out of 105 bugs for $8 each. 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , pp. 3-13, 2012.
- Graves, A., Wayne, G., and Danihelka, I. Neural turing machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401 , 2014. · arXiv
- Raffel, C., Shazeer, N. M., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., and Liu, P. J. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. ArXiv , abs/1910.10683, 2020. · arXiv
- Rokon, M. O. F., Islam, R., Darki, A., Papalexakis, E. E., and Faloutsos, M. Sourcefinder: Finding malware source-code from publicly available repositories in github. In 23rd International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID 2020) , pp. 149-163, San Sebastian, October 2020. USENIX Association. ISBN 978-1-93913318-2. URL https://www . usenix . org/conference/ raid2020/presentation/omar .
- Yin, P. and Neubig, G. A syntactic neural model for generalpurpose code generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , pp. 440-450, 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208 · see citing works
Self-citationA Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
“Large Language Models (LLMs) (Chen et al., 2021; Kasneci et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2023a) have gained significant attention in recent years due to their remarkable capabilities in natural language processing tasks.”
BackgroundOn the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676 · see citing works
Self-citationPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · see citing works
“In the HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) and MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) datasets, the model is given an English-language description of a few sentences and a small number of input-output examples, and the goal is to generate a short Python program, usually a single function.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · see citing works
“, 2020), as well as the use of large language models (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
BackgroundA survey on large language model based autonomous agents
Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al. (2024) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 · Cited by 1,941 · see citing works
Self-citationEfficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention
Kwon, W., Li, Z., Zhuang, S., Sheng, Y., Zheng, L., Yu, C. H., Gonzalez, J., Zhang, H., & Stoica, I. (2023) · Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/3600006.3613165 · Cited by 1,817 · see citing works
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Wang, W., Joty, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.685 · Cited by 1,495 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Wang, W., Joty, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.00859 · Cited by 1,495 · see citing works
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7 · Cited by 1,409 · see citing works
“An example would be the integration of deep learning models, like Codex (Chen et al. 2021), into a more interactive and comprehensive system, like GitHub Copilot, which allows its users to code more efficiently.”
InfluentialFinetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners
Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V. Y., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01652 · Cited by 1,101 · see citing works
The rise and potential of large language model based agents: a survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0 · Cited by 970 · see citing works
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · see citing works
“We use two public engines code-davinci-001 and code-davinci-002 from the Codex series (Chen et al., 2021) to aid reproducibility; • LaMDA-137B (Thoppilan et al., 2022) is a dense left-to-right, decoder-only language model with 137-billion parameters, pre-trained on a mixture of web documents,…”
BackgroundMethodCode as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control
Liang, J., Huang, W., Xia, F., Xu, P., Hausman, K., Ichter, B., Florence, P., & Zeng, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160591 · Cited by 767 · see citing works
A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Fan, W., Ding, Y., Ning, L., Wang, S., Li, H., Yin, D., Chua, T.-S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 · Cited by 827 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2019 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 · Cited by 904 · see citing works
“Another example is when GPT3 models trained on GitHub learn to produce buggy code (Chen et al., 2021).”
MethodTaxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models
Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533088 · Cited by 764 · see citing works
“Creators of the assistive coding tool Co-Pilot based on GPT-3 suggest that such tools may lower the cost of developing polymorphic malware which is able to change its features in order to evade detection [37].”
BackgroundInfluentialChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health
De Angelis, L., Baglivo, F., Arzilli, G., Privitera, G. P., Ferragina, P., Tozzi, A. E., & Rizzo, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1166120 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
ProgPrompt: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models
Singh, I., Blukis, V., Mousavian, A., Goyal, A., Xu, D., Tremblay, J., Fox, D., Thomason, J., & Garg, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10161317 · Cited by 613 · see citing works
ChatGPT for Robotics: Design Principles and Model Abilities
Vemprala, S. H., Bonatti, R., Bucker, A., & Kapoor, A. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3387941 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Self-citationGPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.10130 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
“This could lower the cost and engineering expertise required to create such tools, potentially accelerating LLM adoption and integration even further (Chen et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCode Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code
Rozière, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12950 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
Large language models for software engineering: survey and open problems
Fan, A., Gokkaya, B., Harman, M., Lyubarskiy, M., Sengupta, S., Yoo, S., & Zhang, J. M. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering (ICSE-FoSE) · doi:10.1109/icse-fose59343.2023.00008 · Cited by 650 · see citing works
A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
Borji, A. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2895792/v1 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.13586 · Cited by 4,352 · see citing works
Automatic Generation of Programming Exercises and Code Explanations Using Large Language Models
Sarsa, S., Denny, P., Hellas, A., & Leinonen, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 · doi:10.1145/3501385.3543957 · Cited by 497 · see citing works
Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
“• Core-knowledge benchmarks, including MMLU [16], HellaSwag [41], ARC [8], WinoGrande [31], HumanEval [6], GSM-8K [9], and AGIEval [42], evaluate the core capabilities of pre-trained LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot benchmark sets.”
MethodAsleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot’s Code Contributions
Pearce, H., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Karri, R. (2022) · 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833571 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development
Qian, C., Liu, W., Liu, H., Chen, N., Dang, Y., Li, J., Yang, C., Chen, W., Su, Y., Cong, X., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.810 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
The Robots Are Coming: Exploring the Implications of OpenAI Codex on Introductory Programming
Finnie-Ansley, J., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Prather, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference · doi:10.1145/3511861.3511863 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Automated Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Models
Xia, C. S., Wei, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00129 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Audiolm: A language modeling approach to audio generation
Borsos, Z., Marinier, R., Vincent, D., Kharitonov, E., Pietquin, O., Sharifi, M., Roblek, D., Teboul, O., Grangier, D., Tagliasacchi, M., et al. (2023) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2023.3288409 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation
Schäfer, M., Nadi, S., Eghbali, A., & Tip, F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3334955 · Cited by 431 · see citing works
“Some LLMs such as BERT [30] or GPT-3 [31] are trained purely on text extracted from books and other public sources, while others like OpenAI Codex [32] and AlphaCode [33] are put through additional training on publicly available source code to make them better suited for software development tasks…”
BackgroundTowards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
Huang, J., & Chang, K. C.-C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.67 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Almanac — Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Clinical Medicine
Zakka, C., Shad, R., Chaurasia, A., Dalal, A. R., Kim, J. L., Moor, M., Fong, R., Phillips, C., Alexander, K., Ashley, E., et al. (2024) · NEJM AI · doi:10.1056/aioa2300068 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
GitHub Copilot AI pair programmer: Asset or Liability?
Moradi Dakhel, A., Majdinasab, V., Nikanjam, A., Khomh, F., Desmarais, M. C., & Jiang, Z. M. (. (2023) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111734 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
A Survey on Large Language Models: Applications, Challenges, Limitations, and Practical UsagePreprint
Hadi, M. U., Al-Tashi, Q., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Muneer, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M. B., Akhtar, N., Hassan, S. Z., et al. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23589741.v1 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models
Barke, S., James, M. B., & Polikarpova, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3586030 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
LLM-Planner: Few-Shot Grounded Planning for Embodied Agents with Large Language Models
Song, C. H., Sadler, B. M., Wu, J., Chao, W.-L., Washington, C., & Su, Y. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00280 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models
Webb, T., Holyoak, K. J., & Lu, H. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01659-w · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., DasSarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.05862 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
Self-citationBecker, B. A., Denny, P., Finnie-Ansley, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Prather, J., & Santos, E. A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3545945.3569759 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
The Robots Are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Education
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3623762.3633499 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Visual Language Maps for Robot Navigation
Huang, C., Mees, O., Zeng, A., & Burgard, W. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160969 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
Bengesi, S., El-Sayed, H., Sarker, M. K., Houkpati, Y., Irungu, J., & Oladunni, T. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3397775 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Learning To Retrieve Prompts for In-Context Learning
Rubin, O., Herzig, J., & Berant, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.191 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models
Yuan, A., Coenen, A., Reif, E., & Ippolito, D. (2022) · 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511105 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels
Gao, L., Ma, X., Lin, J., & Callan, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.99 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities
Chen, J., Liu, Z., Huang, X., Wu, C., Liu, Q., Jiang, G., Pu, Y., Lei, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., et al. (2024) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-024-01276-1 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.557 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10509 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Studying the effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming
Kazemitabaar, M., Chow, J., Ma, C. K. T., Ericson, B. J., Weintrop, D., & Grossman, T. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580919 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
“After clicking on the generate button, the code generated from OpenAI Codex would be inserted at the beginning of the line in which the cursor was located (and shifting any existing code below).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCan large language models reason about medical questions?
Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Motzfeldt, A. G., & Winther, O. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100943 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
“Performances were lower for each of the considered CoT cues, except in the case of the USMLE dataset, for which halfoftheCoT prompts resultedinsmallimprovementsover thedirect prompt (+1.1% using CoT prompt #1 vs. using the direct prompt).”
MethodInfluentialLee, M., Liang, P., & Yang, Q. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502030 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT
Sobania, D., Briesch, M., Hanna, C., & Petke, J. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Automated Program Repair (APR) · doi:10.1109/apr59189.2023.00012 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of GPT-3 for Few-Shot Knowledge-Based VQA
Yang, Z., Gan, Z., Wang, J., Hu, X., Lu, Y., Liu, Z., & Wang, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i3.20215 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT
Wu, X., Duan, R., & Ni, J. (2023) · Journal of Information and Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.jiixd.2023.10.007 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents
Gao, S., Fang, A., Huang, Y., Giunchiglia, V., Noori, A., Schwarz, J. R., Ektefaie, Y., Kondic, J., & Zitnik, M. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.09.022 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
CodaMosa: Escaping Coverage Plateaus in Test Generation with Pre-trained Large Language Models
Lemieux, C., Inala, J. P., Lahiri, S. K., & Sen, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00085 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Deng, Y., Xia, C. S., Peng, H., Yang, C., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3597926.3598067 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI
Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B. N., Santos, E. A., & Sarsa, S. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3624720 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
“Can a student with no programming knowledge, but who is armed with a code-generating LLM, pass typical programming assessments?”
BackgroundDenny, P., Kumar, V., & Giacaman, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3545945.3569823 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
“More concretely, Reflexion agents improve on decision-making AlfWorld [22] tasks over strong baseline approaches by an absolute 22% in 12 iterative learning steps, and on reasoning questions in HotPotQA [28] by 20%, and Python programming tasks on HumanEval [5] by as much as 11%.”
BackgroundMethodA review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry
Ramos, M. C., Collison, C. J., & White, A. D. (2025) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d4sc03921a · Cited by 274 · see citing works
The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot
Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., & Demirer, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.06590 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
“GitHub Copilot is powered by OpenAI’s generative AI model, Codex [Chen et al., 2021].”
Query Rewriting in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Ma, X., Gong, Y., He, P., Zhao, H., & Duan, N. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
ChatGPT and Software Testing Education: Promises & Perils
Jalil, S., Rafi, S., LaToza, T. D., Moran, K., & Lam, W. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW) · doi:10.1109/icstw58534.2023.00078 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control
Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15818 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
“…models can enable not only fluent text generation [1, 2, 3] but emergent problem-solving [4, 5, 6] and creative generation of prose [7, 2] and code [8], while vision-language models enable open-vocabulary visual recognition [9, 10, 11] and can even make complex inferences about object-agent…”
BackgroundCodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X
Zheng, Q., Xia, X., Zou, X., Dong, Y., Wang, S., Xue, Y., Shen, L., Wang, Z., Wang, A., Li, Y., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599790 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Self-citationSELFIES and the future of molecular string representations
Krenn, M., Ai, Q., Barthel, S., Carson, N., Frei, A., Frey, N. C., Friederich, P., Gaudin, T., Gayle, A. A., Jablonka, K. M., et al. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100588 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Ross, S., Martinez, F., Houde, S., Muller, M. J., & Weisz, J. D. (2023) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584037 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Large language models for human–robot interaction: A review
Zhang, C., Chen, J., Li, J., Peng, Y., & Mao, Z. (2023) · Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics · doi:10.1016/j.birob.2023.100131 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Automated Repair of Programs from Large Language Models
Fan, Z., Gao, X., Mirchev, M., Roychoudhury, A., & Tan, S. H. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00128 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672459 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
“Recently, code generation has made substantial advancements in both academic and industrial domains [8, 16, 30, 49].”
A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation
Oppenlaender, J. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2286532 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Large Language Model guided Protocol Fuzzing
Meng, R., Mirchev, M., Böhme, M., & Roychoudhury, A. (2024) · Proceedings 2024 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2024.24556 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them
Suzgun, M., Scales, N., Schärli, N., Gehrmann, S., Tay, Y., Chung, H. W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q., Chi, E., Zhou, D., et al. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.824 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation
Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., & Wang, M. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3697010 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
“It is one of the most widely used measurement metrics for assessing code generation capabilities 9 [4, 12, 26, 36, 71].”
InfluentialPrather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Powell, G., Finnie-Ansley, J., & Santos, E. A. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3617367 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?
Perry, N., Srivastava, M., Kumar, D., & Boneh, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3576915.3623157 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Few-shot training LLMs for project-specific code-summarization
Ahmed, T., & Devanbu, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3551349.3559555 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoning
Surís, D., Menon, S., & Vondrick, C. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.01092 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Chip-Chat: Challenges and Opportunities in Conversational Hardware Design
Blocklove, J., Garg, S., Karri, R., & Pearce, H. A. (2023) · ACM/IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for CAD (MLCAD) · doi:10.1109/mlcad58807.2023.10299874 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Adan: Adaptive Nesterov Momentum Algorithm for Faster Optimizing Deep Models
Xie, X., Zhou, P., Li, H., Lin, Z., & Yan, S. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3423382 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Casheekar, A. M., Lahiri, A., Rath, K., Prabhakar, K. S., & Srinivasan, K. (2024) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.100632 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework
Hong, S., Zhuge, M., Chen, J., Zheng, X., Cheng, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00352 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
“The HumanEval benchmark includes 164 handwritten programming tasks.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInvestigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design
Sun, J., Liao, Q. V., Muller, M., Agarwal, M., Houde, S., Talamadupula, K., & Weisz, J. D. (2022) · 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511119 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Foundation metrics for evaluating effectiveness of healthcare conversations powered by generative AI
Abbasian, M., Khatibi, E., Azimi, I., Oniani, D., Shakeri Hossein Abad, Z., Thieme, A., Sriram, R., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Lin, B., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01074-z · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models
Pearce, H. A., Tan, B., Ahmad, B., Karri, R., & Dolan-Gavitt, B. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179420 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models
Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Lovitt, L., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Conerly, T., Dassarma, N., Drain, D., Elhage, N., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533229 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Self-citationLarge Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction
Kang, S., Yoon, J., & Yoo, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00194 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation With Large Language Models
Strobelt, H., Webson, A., Sanh, V., Hoover, B., Beyer, J., Pfister, H., & Rush, A. M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209479 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Multi-step Jailbreaking Privacy Attacks on ChatGPT
Li, H., Guo, D., Fan, W., Xu, M., Huang, J., Meng, F., & Song, Y. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.272 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Synergy
Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Huang, M., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.620 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., Ryder, N., Pavlov, M., Power, A., Kaiser, L., Bavarian, M., Winter, C., Tillet, P., Such, F. P., Cummings, D., Plappert, M., Chantzis, F., Barnes, E., Herbert-Voss, A., Guss, W. H., Nichol, A., Paino, A., Tezak, N., Tang, J., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Jain, S., Saunders, W., Hesse, C., Carr, A. N., Leike, J., Achiam, J., Misra, V., Morikawa, E., Radford, A., Knight, M., Brundage, M., Murati, M., Mayer, K., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Amodei, D., McCandlish, S., Sutskever, I., & Zaremba, W.
- Affiliations
- OpenAI (United States) (US)
- Anthropic (United States) (US)
- Zipline International (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2107.03374
- OpenAlex
- W3177813494
- Cited by
- 1,436
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 121 · 2025: 261 · 2024: 376 · 2023: 551 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 34
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62472339, 62302375)
- China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2023M723736)
- Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Keywords
- large language models, code generation, LLVM intermediate representation, AI-generated code, AWS Lambda, performance comparison, memory usage, CPU utilization, garbage collection overhead
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
