The DOI matches its DataCite record; 91 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“[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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Today, safety measures are typically task-specific heuristics”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“However, there is an unignorable programming language bias in existing code benchmarks -over 95% code generation benchmarks are dominated by Python, leaving the LLMs' capabilities in other programming languages such as Java and C/C++ unknown.”
From CRUXEVAL-X: A Benchmark for Multilingual Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution (2025) · 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.
Citations
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×
“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. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: 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 54,325 · cited 5×
“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×
“…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×
“, 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×
“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×
“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×
“…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
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 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 2×
“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-citation
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
Items 1,201–1,300 of 1,324
Yan, W., & Li, Y. (2022) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse-companion55297.2022.9793816 · Cited by 5
Prudens: An Argumentation-Based Language for Cognitive Assistants
Markos, V., & Michael, L. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21541-4_19 · Cited by 2
Contrastive Code-Comment Pre-training
Pei, X., Liu, D., Luo, Q., & Xu, C. (2022) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm54844.2022.00050 · Cited by 4
Code Generation from Natural Language Using Two-Way Pre-Training
Wang, J., Peng, Y., Le, X., Chen, C., & Guan, X. (2023) · International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI) · doi:10.1109/icaci58115.2023.10146131 · Cited by 2
Automatic Document Selection for Efficient Encoder Pretraining
Feng, Y., Xia, P., Durme, B. V., & Sedoc, J. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.647 · Cited by 4
Complex Reasoning in Natural Languag
Zhao, W., Geva, M., Lin, B. Y., Yasunaga, M., Madaan, A., & Yu, T. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.2 · Cited by 5
CodeExp: Explanatory Code Document Generation
Cui, H., Wang, C., Huang, J., Inala, J. P., Mytkowicz, T., Wang, B., Gao, J., & Duan, N. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.174 · Cited by 5
Computable Contracts by Extracting Obligation Logic Graphs
Servantez, S., Lipka, N., Siu, A. F., Aggarwal, M., Krishnamurthy, B., Garimella, A., Hammond, K., & Jain, R. (2023) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/3594536.3595162 · Cited by 3
Review of ways to apply machine learning methods in software engineering
Asaad, J., & Avksentieva, E. Y. (2023) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202344907018 · Cited by 2
Fine-Tuning GPT-3 for Synthetic Danish News Generation
Almasi, M., & Schiønning, A. (2023) · International Conference on Natural Language Generation · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.inlg-main.4 · Cited by 2
DialCoT Meets PPO: Decomposing and Exploring Reasoning Paths in Smaller Language Models
Han, C., Du, X., Che, Z., Lian, Y., Li, X., Gao, M. Y., & Wang, B. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.501 · Cited by 6
Did You Mean...? Confidence-based Trade-offs in Semantic Parsing
Stengel-Eskin, E., & Durme, B. V. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.159 · Cited by 2
Enhancing Language Model with Unit Test Techniques for Efficient Regular Expression Generation
Mao, C., Lin, X., Jin, X., & Zhang, X. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.2 · Cited by 2
How Well Can Masked Language Models Spot Identifiers That Violate Naming Guidelines?
Villmow, J., Campos, V., Petry, J., Andaloussi, A. A., Ulges, A., & Weber, B. (2023) · IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) · doi:10.1109/scam59687.2023.00023 · Cited by 2
Gökçimen, T., & Daş, B. (2023) · International Informatics and Software Engineering Conference (IISEC) · doi:10.1109/iisec59749.2023.10391042 · Cited by 2
Converting Structured Forms to Storable Databases using Form2DB
Anbarasi, A., Jagadeesan, S., & Nithyasree, K. C. (2023) · International Conference on System, Computation, Automation and Networking (ICSCAN) · doi:10.1109/icscan58655.2023.10394829 · Cited by 2
Unveiling the Cognitive Capacity of ChatGPT: Assessing its Human-Like Reasoning Abilities
(2024) · International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science · doi:10.56726/irjmets52428 · Cited by 3
Development Strategy of Collective Intelligence and Its Industrial Clusters
Wu, W., Zheng, Z., Wang, H., Tang, S., & Wang, T. (2024) · Strategic Study of CAE · doi:10.15302/j-sscae-2024.01.008 · Cited by 2
Beyond Accuracy and Robustness Metrics for Large Language Models for Code
Rodríguez-Cárdenas, D. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3639478.3639792 · Cited by 2
Serkin, L., Paić, G., & Coello, C. A. C. (2024) · TIES Revista de Tecnología e Innovación en Educación Superior · doi:10.22201/dgtic.26832968e.2024.10.10 · Cited by 3
Wang, Z., Chen, J., Wei, Z., Lin, L., & Tong, G. (2026) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s26113502 · Cited by 2
Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning
NVIDIA, :, Azzolini, A., Bai, J., Brandon, H., Cao, J., Chattopadhyay, P., Chen, H., Chu, J., Cui, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15558 · Cited by 187
MiMo: Unlocking the Reasoning Potential of Language Model - From Pretraining to Posttraining
Xiaomi, L.-C., :, Xia, B., Shen, B., Cici, Zhu, D., Zhang, D., Wang, G., Zhang, H., Liu, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07608 · Cited by 1
“Coding : LiveCodeBench (Jain et al., 2024), HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), HumanEval+ (Liu et al., 2023), MBPP (Austin et al., 2021), MBPP+ (Liu et al., 2023), CRUXEval (Gu et al., 2024).”
Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks
Kwa, T., West, B., Becker, J., Deng, A., Garcia, K., Hasin, M., Jawhar, S., Kinniment, M., Rush, N., Von Arx, S., et al. (2025) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 · doi:10.52202/085713-3086 · Cited by 21
“HumanEval [36] and MBPP [37] provide programming challenges of varying complexity, while more complex benchmarks like SWE-bench [28] and APPS [38] test more sophisticated programming abilities.”
Self-citationTowards Decoding Developer Cognition in the Age of AI Assistants
Haque, E. A., Brown, C., LaToza, T. D., & Johnson, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02684 · Cited by 1
“Given the increased usage of AI for code generation, many research efforts have attempted to provide insights into the ability for these tools to support developers in practice [1], [2], [4]–[6].”
Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis?
Xu, D., Xie, T., Xia, B., Li, H., Bai, Y., Sun, Y., & Wang, W. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.02906 · Cited by 3
Dedieu, A., Lehrach, W., Zhou, G., George, D., & Lázaro-Gredilla, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05946 · Cited by 2
“…prediction have been successfully applied to a wide range of applications such as natural language processing (Radford et al., 2018; Chowdhery et al., 2022), text-conditioned image generation (Ramesh et al., 2021), reinforcement learning (Chen et al., 2021a), code writing (Chen et al., 2021b).”
BackgroundDeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks
Huang, W., Lee, C., Tng, L., & Ge, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07946 · Cited by 2
“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]. pass@1.”
SWE-Pruner: Self-Adaptive Context Pruning for Coding Agents
Wang, Y., Shi, Y., Yang, M., Zhang, R., He, S., Lian, H., Chen, Y., Ye, S., Cai, K., & Gu, X. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16746 · Cited by 2
“Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly progressed in software engineering tasks, from simple code understanding (Chen et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023b; Yang et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2025) to interactive agents capable of navigating repositories, running tests, and submitting patches end-to-end…”
SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers
Xiang, Y., Yan, H., Ouyang, S., Gui, L., & He, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.00255 · Cited by 1
“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).”
McEval: Massively Multilingual Code Evaluation
Chai, L., Liu, S., Yang, J., Yin, Y., Jin, K., Liu, J., Sun, T., Zhang, G., Ren, C., Guo, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.07436 · Cited by 73
“%) metric (Kulal et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021) for evaluations.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBerges, V.-P., Oğuz, B., Haziza, D., Yih, W.-T., Zettlemoyer, L., & Ghosh, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09764 · Cited by 46
“…multi-hop question answering (HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018)), scientific and common sense world knowledge (MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), OBQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018), PIQA (Bisk et al., 2019)) and coding (HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), MBPP (Austin et al., 2021)).”
LongCodeZip: Compress Long Context for Code Language Models
Shi, Y., Qian, Y., Zhang, H., Shen, B., & Gu, X. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 7
“CodeX [50] adapts GPT architecture and is pretrained on a large corpus of GitHub code using next-token prediction.”
FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
Dai, D., Liu, M., Li, A., Cao, J., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Peng, X., & Zheng, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06939 · Cited by 1
“In our implementation, we construct a comprehensive evaluation suite by integrating tasks from three complementary sources: HumanEval [6], CoderEval [50] and SWE-Bench-verified [20].”
On Randomness in Agentic Evals
Bjarnason, B. H., Silva, A., & Monperrus, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07150 · Cited by 1
“The pass@k metric (Chen, 2021) estimates the probability that at least one of k randomly selected attempts succeeds.”
AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?
Yoran, O., Amouyal, S. J., Malaviya, C., Bogin, B., Press, O., & Berant, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.15711 · Cited by 11
FormalAlign: Automated Alignment Evaluation for Autoformalization
Lu, J., Wan, Y., Huang, Y., Xiong, J., Liu, Z., & Guo, Z. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10135 · Cited by 1
Esnaola, L. M., Ramón, H. D., & Lanzarini, L. C. (2026) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-026-10813-7 · Cited by 2
SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agents
Zhao, B., Srikanth, D., Wu, Y., & Jiang, Z. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21384 · Cited by 33
“HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) and MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) evaluate isolated functions.”
Alex, Liu, Vivian, & Chi (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05098 · Cited by 1
Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)
Ahmed, T., Pai, K. S., Devanbu, P., & Barr, E. T. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 112
From Reasoning to Code: GRPO Optimization for Underrepresented Languages
PENNINO, F., RAIMONDI, B., RONDELLI, M., GURIOLI, A., & GABBRIELLI, M. (2026) · Theory and Practice of Logic Programming · doi:10.1017/s1471068426100489 · Cited by 1
Context as a Tool: Context Management for Long-Horizon SWE-Agents
Liu, S., Yang, J., Jiang, B., Li, Y., Guo, J., Liu, X., & Dai, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.22087 · Cited by 35
Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems
Kim, Y., Gu, K., Park, C., Park, C., Schmidgall, S., Heydari, A. A., Yan, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhuang, Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08296 · Cited by 197
A benchmark for vericoding: formally verified program synthesis
Bursuc, S., Ehrenborg, T., Lin, S., Astefanoaei, L., Chiosa, I. E., Kukovec, J., Singh, A., Butterley, O., Bizid, A., Dougherty, Q., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22908 · Cited by 1
“Vibe coding benchmarks such as APPS (Hendrycks et al., 2021), FVAPPS (Dougherty & Mehta, 2025) and HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021).”
R2E-Gym: Procedural Environments and Hybrid Verifiers for Scaling Open-Weights SWE Agents
Jain, N., Singh, J., Shetty, M., Zheng, L., Sen, K., & Stoica, I. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07164 · Cited by 1
A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation
Aljedaani, W., Shaik, M. A., & Aljohani, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Web for All Conference · doi:10.1145/3800424.3800453 · Cited by 1
“While their capacity for natural language understanding and logic synthesis has been widely demonstrated in general software engineering [22, 34], their application to web accessibility remains an emerging and critical domain.”
ARS: Adaptive Reasoning Suppression for Efficient Large Reasoning Language Models
Zheng, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00071
“These models employ extended reasoning chains with reflection behaviors, backtracking, and self-verification processes that significantly enhance problem-solving capabilities in mathematics [10], programming [4], and scientific reasoning [19].”
Wu, M., & Ouyang, F. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10211-x
SWE-EVO: Benchmarking Coding Agents in Long-Horizon Software Evolution Scenarios
Le, T., Thai, M. V. T., Manh, D. N., Nhat, H. P., & Bui, N. D. Q. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18470 · Cited by 79
“…language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in automating software engineering (SE) tasks, including code generation (Bui et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2022; Manh et al., 2023; To et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2023; Zhuo et al., 2024), bug fixing (Jimenez…”
iCLP: Large Language Model Reasoning with Implicit Cognition Latent Planning
Chen, S., & Niu, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.24014
Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression
Johnson, W. (2026) · arXiv · Cited by 1
“Functional correctness evaluation in code generation employs the pass@ k metric (Chen et al., 2021), which estimates the probability that at least one of k generated samples passes all test cases.”
SAHOO: Safeguarded Alignment for High-Order Optimization Objectives in Recursive Self-Improvement
Sahoo, S., Chadha, A., Jain, V., & Chaudhary, D. (2026) · arXiv
“We evaluate three benchmarks that probe distinct alignment failure modes: HumanEval (code generation) Chen et al. (2021 All experimental parameters were derived from data distributions and hardware constraints rather than arbitrary choices.”
RepliBench: Evaluating the autonomous replication capabilities of language model agents
Black, S., Stickland, A. C., Pencharz, J., Sourbut, O., Schmatz, M., Bailey, J., Matthews, O., Millwood, B., Remedios, A., & Cooney, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18565
“Following Chen et al. (2021), pass@ k for task i , variant j is calculated using the unbiased estimator: where n is the number of attempts per task family, c is the number of successes for task i , variant j , and k ≤ n .”
Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks
Zheng, M., Han, K., Li, B., Xu, H., Tian, Y., He, W., Zhou, H., Guo, J., Hu, H., Ma, L., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12344
OctoBench: Benchmarking Scaffold-Aware Instruction Following in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding
Ding, D., Liu, S., Yang, E., Lin, J., Chen, Z., Dou, S., Guo, H., Cheng, W., Zhao, P., Xiao, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10343
“Code Generation and Repository-Level Evaluation Evaluation of code generation has moved from isolated function synthesis (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021; Chai et al., 2024) to repository-level generation and patching that requires using cross-file context, project APIs, and existing…”
PrefillShare: A Shared Prefill Module for KV Reuse in Multi-LLM Disaggregated Serving
Woo, S., Kim, H., Shim, S., Jo, M., Jeong, H., Lee, J., Kim, J., Lee, S., Ryu, J., Park, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12029
“Additional implementation details are provided in Appendix B.1”
Multi-LCB: Extending LiveCodeBench to Multiple Programming Languages
Ivanova, M., Zadorozhny, P., Levichev, R., Petrov, I., Pavel, A., Lopatin, I., Kutalev, A., & Babaev, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.20517 · Cited by 1
“HumanEval-XL (Peng et al., 2024) similarly expands HumanEval to additional languages and provides a standardized execution harness while preserving the functional, unit-test format.”
Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution
Orlanski, G., Xiao, K., Garcia, X., Hui, J., Howland, J., Malmaud, J., Austin, J., Singh, R., & Catasta, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.01973 · Cited by 21
Guiding Human Validation of LLM-Generated Code via Verifiable Literate Programming
Yuan, Z., Lu, W., Wu, H., Jin, D., & Wu, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02333
What Makes In-Context Examples Effective for Code Generation?
Li, D., Chen, S., Cao, J., & Cheung, S.-C. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3832275
“Unlike single-model tasks like chatbots [17], math [24], or coding [16], these applications coordinate multiple models and queries to solve complex tasks, like data-intensive reasoning [39], software engineering [64, 52], web navigation [70], etc.”
Rethinking Mixture-of-Agents: Is Mixing Different Large Language Models Beneficial?
Li, W., Lin, Y., Xia, M., & Jin, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00674 · Cited by 62
“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 (Roziere et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Brown et…”
Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench
Nadgir, N., Kapoor, S., Liu, K., Kirgis, P., Orona, M., Rabanser, S., Bayer, T., Shetty, A., Ling, Y., Chan-Sew, D., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26158
“Top agents now cluster near ceiling-level scores and are often statistically indistinguishable from one another [2, 30, 11, 10, 26].”
Live-SWE-agent: Can Software Engineering Agents Self-Evolve on the Fly?
Xia, C. S., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Wei, Y., & Zhang, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.13646 · Cited by 2
“1 Introduction Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly progressed from simple code autocompletion [7, 11, 21] to interactive agents capable of navigating repositories, running tests, and submitting patches end-to-end [40, 33, 45, 36, 9, 22].”
Zhou, C., Zhang, X., Song, D., Chen, X., Gu, W., Ma, H., Tian, Y., Zhang, M., & Hu, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.09183 · Cited by 18
“7B and RefineCoder-QW-7B achieve average pass@1 improvements of 2.4 and 3.0, respectively, on the HumanEval (+), MBPP (+), LiveCodeBench, and the BigCodeBench-hard benchmark (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023; Jain et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2024).”
InfluentialHarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization
Ursekar, V., Shanker, A., Maurya, Y., Yasser, S., Kalmath, V. S., Chatrath, V., & Xue, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.06301
“Coding agent evaluation has grown from function-level synthesis [4, 2] to repository-scale tasks in real execution environments [9], and tasks requiring iterative optimization, such as machine learning engineering [3] and kernel optimization [19].”
SWE-Master: Unleashing the Potential of Software Engineering Agents via Post-Training
Song, H., Huang, L., Sun, S., Jiang, J., Le, R., Cheng, D., Chen, G., Hu, Y., Chen, Z., Jia, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03411
IW-Bench: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models for Converting Image-to-Web
Guo, H., Zhang, W., Chen, J., Gu, Y., Yang, J., Du, J., Cao, S., Hui, B., Liu, T., Ma, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.18980
“Their performance has been evaluated across disciplines such as QA, math, and science (Chen et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023b; Huang et al., 2023, 2022; Liu et al., 2023b).”
MergeMix: Optimizing Mid-Training Data Mixtures via Learnable Model Merging
Wang, J., Tian, C., Chen, K., Liu, Z., Mao, J., Zhao, W. X., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17858
“…(Wei et al., 2023), MathBench (Liu et al., 2024), minerva math (Hendrycks et al., 2021b) and college math (Tang et al., 2024); (e) code (Hu-manEval (Chen et al., 2021), LiveCodeBench (Jain et al., 2025), MBPP (Tao et al., 2024), HumanEval plus (Liu et al., 2023), MBPP plus (Liu et al., 2023),…”
Xie, S., Shi, Z., Shen, H., Wang, J., Zhong, S., Liu, M., Pan, C., Jia, P., Sun, B., Jing, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21482
“B ENCH currently comprises 100 tasks spanning six domain categories: Technology (25), Energy & Materials (20), Industrials & Transport (18), Consumer (16), Finance (12), and Healthcare & Pharma (9).”
Detecting Data Contamination in Code Generation Benchmarks via DiffMIA
Yamashita, K. (2025) · 2025 32nd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC) · doi:10.1109/apsec66846.2025.00128
A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052 · Cited by 70
Token Reduction Is Not Cost Reduction
Weinberger, S., & Hozez, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.12161 · Cited by 1
“SWE-bench and its verified subset [19, 25] established repository-level issue resolution as the standard end-to-end coding task; InterCode [32] standardized interactive coding with execution feedback; HumanEval and MBPP [6, 9] anchor function-level synthesis.”
Harness-of-Harness: Multi-Day Autonomous Software Development with Continual Improvement
Yan, H., Su, M.-L., Zhang, H., Li, Z., Zhang, C., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., Bai, L., & Hu, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.01481 · Cited by 5
Conditional Memory via Scalable Lookup: A New Axis of Sparsity for Large Language Models
Cheng, X., Zeng, W., Dai, D., Chen, Q., Wang, B., Xie, Z., Huang, K., Yu, X., Hao, Z., Zhang, H., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.226 · Cited by 3
Gao, X., Xie, W., Lixin, Fang, X., Hang, C., Li, C., Lin, Y., & Xu, X. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i25.39266
Ning, X., Tieu, K., Fu, D., Wei, T., Li, Z., Bei, Y., Zou, J., Ai, M., Liu, Z., Li, T.-W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18747
Bhattarai, M., Santos, J. E., Jones, S., Biswas, A., Alexandrov, B., & O'Malley, D. (2024) · arXiv
Shen, X., Liu, Y., Dai, Y., Wang, Y., Miao, R., Tan, Y., Pan, S., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23352 · Cited by 6
Jiang, J., Shen, J., Kim, S., Yoo, K. M., Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05863 · Cited by 8
Are Performance-Optimization Benchmarks Reliably Measuring Coding Agents?
Chen, Z., Sun, Z., Shi, Y., Lo, D., & Jiang, L. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01211 · Cited by 9
“In the remaining text of this paper, we use submission for the evaluated agent configuration and use model names only as shorthand labels for the underlying model component [20]–[22].”
SE-Blackboard: A Shared-State Architecture for Multi-Agent Software Engineering Pipelines
Liu, E., Zhu, Q., & Dong, X. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3695435
Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces
Merrill, M. A., Shaw, A. G., Carlini, N., Li, B., Raj, H., Bercovich, I., Shi, L., Shin, J. Y., Walshe, T., Buchanan, E. K., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11868 · Cited by 392
Does Spatial Cognition Emerge in Frontier Models?
Ramakrishnan, S. K., Wijmans, E., Kraehenbuehl, P., & Koltun, V. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.06468 · Cited by 49
Raven: The Harness of Harnesses for Composable Agentic Intelligence
AI, E. (2026) · arXiv
Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation
Heineman, D., Hofmann, V., Magnusson, I., Gu, Y., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., Lo, K., & Dodge, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13144
MAS-ZERO: Designing Multi-Agent Systems with Zero Supervision
Ke, Z., Xu, A., Ming, Y., Nguyen, X.-P., Chin, R., Xiong, C., & Joty, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.14996
“This limitation is less apparent on simple tasks such as GSM8K and HumanEval, which are commonly used for MAS evaluation [17, 55, 58] and where most methods already perform well.”
AlphaResearch: Accelerating New Algorithm Discovery with Language Models
Yu, Z., Feng, K., Zhao, Y., He, S., Zhang, X.-P., & Cohan, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.08522
FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents
Gao, H., Liu, Y., He, Y., Dou, L., Du, C., Deng, Z., Hooi, B., Lin, M., & Pang, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15257
Multi-Agent Design: Optimizing Agents with Better Prompts and Topologies
Zhou, H., Wan, X., Sun, R., Palangi, H., Iqbal, S., Vulić, I., Korhonen, A., & Arık, S. Ö. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.02533
ScoreFlow: Mastering LLM Agent Workflows via Score-based Preference Optimization
Wang, Y., Yang, L., Li, G., Wang, M., & Aragam, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04306
Mendel Gödel Machine: Recursive Self-Improving Coding Agents via Comparative Evolution
Liu, C., Liu, Y., Yan, S., Tresp, V., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.07645
CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation
Thakur, A., Lee, J., Tsoukalas, G., Sistla, M., Zhao, M., Zetzsche, S., Durrett, G., Yue, Y., & Chaudhuri, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13938
Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models
Roberts, K. F., Koutarapu, S., Melendez, J., Landsness, E. C., Reese, J. T., Elbert, D. L., & Bateman, R. J. (2026) · npj Dementia · doi:10.1038/s44400-026-00126-3
“Modern LLMs substantially lower this barrier by enabling researchers to describe analytical tasks in plain language and receive executable code in return 20,21 .”
The Energy Cost of Reasoning: Analyzing Energy Usage in LLMs with Test-time Compute
Jin, Y., Wei, G.-Y., & Brooks, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.14733
SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories
Bogin, B., Yang, K., Gupta, S., Richardson, K., Bransom, E., Clark, P., Sabharwal, A., & Khot, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07440
AIOpsLab in Action: An Open Platform for AIOps Research
Ma, M., Clark, J., & Zhang, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3696630.3728619
Med-KGMA: A novel AI-driven medical support system leveraging knowledge graphs and medical advisors
Varshney, S., Jain, B., Singh, P., Rani, D., & Mehra, S. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110929
Do AI-Generated Pull Requests Get Rejected More? (Yes but Why?)
Wang, Y., & Yang, Z. (2026) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1145/3793302.3793568
Metadata
- 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 › Software › 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
