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
Flagged first, then by citations
5 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
Items 101–200 of 1,324
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
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
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
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
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 454
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
Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models
Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., & Anandkumar, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16291 · Cited by 222
“[71] leverage few-shot prompting with Codex [41] to generate executable policies, but they require additional human interaction.”
BackgroundInfluentialInvited Paper: VerilogEval: Evaluating Large Language Models for Verilog Code Generation
Liu, M., Pinckney, N., Khailany, B., & Ren, H. M. (2023) · doi:10.1109/iccad57390.2023.10323812 · Cited by 346
Machine-Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods
Crothers, E. N., Japkowicz, N., & Viktor, H. L. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3294090 · Cited by 196
Generative AI in Higher Education: The ChatGPT Effect
Chan, C. K. Y., & Colloton, T. (2024) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9781003459026 · Cited by 203
Friha, O., Ferrag, M. A., Kantarcı, B., Çakmak, B., Ozgun, A., & Ghoualmi‐Zine, N. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2024.3456549 · Cited by 226
Using GitHub Copilot to Solve Simple Programming Problems
Wermelinger, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3545945.3569830 · Cited by 191
InferFix: End-to-End Program Repair with LLMs
Jin, M., Shahriar, S., Tufano, M., Shi, X., Lu, S., Sundaresan, N., & Svyatkovskiy, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3613892 · Cited by 191
Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion
Ziegler, A., Kalliamvakou, E., Li, X. A., Rice, A., Rifkin, D., Simister, S., Sittampalam, G., & Aftandilian, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Machine Programming · doi:10.1145/3520312.3534864 · Cited by 200
Drori, I., Zhang, S., Shuttleworth, R., Tang, L., Lu, A., Ke, E., Liu, K., Chen, L., Tran, S., Cheng, N., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2123433119 · Cited by 187
InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesis
Fried, D., Aghajanyan, A., Lin, J., Wang, S., Wallace, E., Shi, F., Zhong, R., Yih, W.-T., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lewis, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.05999 · Cited by 187
“Neural models for code generation have either utilized a left-to-right (causal) autoregressive language modeling objective [16, 18] or, as BERT does, a masked language modeling objective [22, 24].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEvaluating progress in automatic chest X-ray radiology report generation
Yu, F., Endo, M., Krishnan, R., Pan, I., Tsai, A., Reis, E. P., Fonseca, E. K. U. N., Lee, H. M. H., Abad, Z. S. H., Ng, A. Y., et al. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100802 · Cited by 200
Lu, G., Ju, X., Chen, X., Pei, W., & Cai, Z. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112031 · Cited by 224
Benchmarking Large Language Models for Automated Verilog RTL Code Generation
Thakur, S., Ahmad, B., Fan, Z., Pearce, H. A., Tan, B., Karri, R., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Garg, S. (2023) · Design, Automation, and Test in Europe · doi:10.23919/date56975.2023.10137086 · Cited by 210
Retrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot Learning
Nashid, N., Sintaha, M., & Mesbah, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00205 · Cited by 178
Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep reinforcement learning
Mankowitz, D. J., Michi, A., Zhernov, A., Gelmi, M., Selvi, M., Paduraru, C., Leurent, E., Iqbal, S., Lespiau, J.-B., Ahern, A., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06004-9 · Cited by 177
Jo, E., Epstein, D. A., Jung, H., & Kim, Y.-H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581503 · Cited by 174
Jackson, I., Sáenz, M. J., & Ivanov, D. (2023) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2023.2276811 · Cited by 206
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.05221 · Cited by 187
Self-citationThe emergence of economic rationality of GPT
Chen, Y., Liu, T. X., Shan, Y., & Zhong, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2316205120 · Cited by 164
“For instance, they can generate computer code (Chen et al., 2021), engage in human-like conversations on various topics (Lin et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialHadi, 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.v4 · Cited by 193
Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology
Betzler, B. K., Chen, H., Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, C. S., Ning, G., Song, S. J., Lee, A. Y., Kawasaki, R., van Wijngaarden, P., Grzybowski, A., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00201-7 · Cited by 161
Wang, M., Wang, M., Xu, X., Yang, L., Cai, D., & Yin, M. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2023.3324714 · Cited by 199
Hagos, D. H., Battle, R., & Rawat, D. B. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3444742 · Cited by 227
RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation
Zhang, F., Chen, B., Zhang, Y., Keung, J., Liu, J., Zan, D., Mao, Y., Lou, J.-G., & Chen, W. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.151 · Cited by 173
Sui, Y., Zhou, M., Zhou, M., Han, S., & Zhang, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3616855.3635752 · Cited by 155
Document-Level Machine Translation with Large Language Models
Wang, L., Lyu, C., Ji, T., Zhang, Z., Yu, D., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1036 · Cited by 323
PAL: Program-aided Language Models
Gao, L., Madaan, A., Zhou, S., Alon, U., Liu, P., Yang, Y., Callan, J., & Neubig, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.10435 · Cited by 155
Legalbench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models
Guha, N., Nyarko, J., Ho, D. E., Ré, C., Chilton, A., Narayana, A., Chohlas-Wood, A., Peters, A., Waldon, B., Rockmore, D., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4583531 · Cited by 154
A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: a history from BERT to ChatGPT
Zhou, C., Li, Q., Li, C., Yu, J., Liu, Y., Wang, G., Zhang, K., Ji, C., Yan, Q., He, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.09419 · Cited by 574
Refining ChatGPT-Generated Code: Characterizing and Mitigating Code Quality Issues
Liu, Y., Le-Cong, T., Widyasari, R., Tantithamthavorn, C., Li, L., Le, X.-B. D., & Lo, D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3643674 · Cited by 149
Feng, S., Park, C. Y., Liu, Y., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656 · Cited by 149
On the Robustness of Code Generation Techniques: An Empirical Study on GitHub Copilot
Mastropaolo, A., Pascarella, L., Guglielmi, E., Ciniselli, M., Scalabrino, S., Oliveto, R., & Bavota, G. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00181 · Cited by 149
Assessing the quality of GitHub copilot’s code generation
Yetiştiren, B., Ozsoy, I., & Tüzün, E. (2022) · International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3558489.3559072 · Cited by 187
Recommending Root-Cause and Mitigation Steps for Cloud Incidents using Large Language Models
Ahmed, T., Ghosh, S., Bansal, C., Zimmermann, T., Zhang, X., & Rajmohan, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00149 · Cited by 148
Large Language Models for Code: Security Hardening and Adversarial Testing
He, J., & Vechev, M. (2023) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3576915.3623175 · Cited by 229
ChatGPT in education: a discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media
Li, L., Ma, Z., Fan, L., Lee, S., Yu, H., & Hemphill, L. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12256-9 · Cited by 218
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Hanna, E. B., Bressand, F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.04088 · Cited by 143
Effective test generation using pre-trained Large Language Models and mutation testing
Dakhel, A. M., Nikanjam, A., Majdinasab, V., Khomh, F., & Desmarais, M. C. (2024) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107468 · Cited by 157
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
Savelka, J., Agarwal, A., An, M., Bogart, C., & Sakr, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 · doi:10.1145/3568813.3600142 · Cited by 141
A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants
Lee, M., Gero, K. I., Chung, J. J. Y., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 · Cited by 136
Task and Motion Planning with Large Language Models for Object Rearrangement
Ding, Y. F., Zhang, X., Paxton, C., & Zhang, S. (2023) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros55552.2023.10342169 · Cited by 196
Zhang, K., Li, J., Li, G., Shi, X., & Jin, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.737 · Cited by 138
Gunasekar, S., Zhang, Y., Aneja, J., Mendes, C. C. T., Del Giorno, A., Gopi, S., Javaheripi, M., Kauffmann, P., de Rosa, G., Saarikivi, O., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.11644 · Cited by 138
Personality Traits in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Serapio‐García, G., Safdari, M., Crepy, C., Sun, L., Fitz, S., Abdulhai, M., Faust, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3296728/v1 · Cited by 137
Natural Language Generation and Understanding of Big Code for AI-Assisted Programming: A Review
Wong, M.-F., Guo, S., Hang, C. N., Ho, S., & Tan, C. W. (2023) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e25060888 · Cited by 169
Lost in Translation: A Study of Bugs Introduced by Large Language Models while Translating Code
Pan, R., Ibrahimzada, A. R., Krishna, R., Sankar, D., Wassi, L. P., Merler, M., Sobolev, B., Pavuluri, R., Sinha, S., & Jabbarvand, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639226 · Cited by 133
Ullah, S., Han, M., Pujar, S., Pearce, H. A., Coskun, A. K., & Stringhini, G. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00210 · Cited by 208
(2023) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179324 · Cited by 131
Kuang, W., Qian, B., Li, Z., Chen, D., Gao, D., Pan, X., Xie, Y., Li, Y., Ding, B., & Zhou, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671573 · Cited by 142
NeuPIMs: NPU-PIM Heterogeneous Acceleration for Batched LLM Inferencing
Heo, G., Lee, S., Cho, J., Choi, H., Lee, S., Ham, H., Kim, G., Mahajan, D., & Park, J. (2024) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) · doi:10.1145/3620666.3651380 · Cited by 162
Asleep at the keyboard? Assessing the security of GitHub copilot’s code contributions
Pearce, H., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Karri, R. (2025) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3610721 · Cited by 140
“Code generation literature emphasizes functional correctness, measured by compilation and checking against unit tests, or using text similarity metrics to desired responses [2].”
InfluentialNo Need to Lift a Finger Anymore? Assessing the Quality of Code Generation by ChatGPT
Liu, Z., Tang, Y., Luo, X., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, L. F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3392499 · Cited by 128
He, Y., Fang, J., Yu, F. R., & Leung, V. C. M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2024.3415661 · Cited by 132
Out of the BLEU: how should we assess quality of the Code Generation models?
Evtikhiev, M., Bogomolov, E., Sokolov, Y., & Bryksin, T. (2023) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111741 · Cited by 127
Repair Is Nearly Generation: Multilingual Program Repair with LLMs
Joshi, H., Cambronero Sanchez, J., Gulwani, S., Le, V., Verbruggen, G., & Radiček, I. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25642 · Cited by 126
Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Derex, M., Müller, T. F., Nussberger, A.-M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffiths, T. L., Henrich, J., et al. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01742-2 · Cited by 132
API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs
Li, M., Zhao, Y., Yu, B., Song, F., Li, H., Yu, H., Li, Z., Huang, F., & Li, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.187 · Cited by 124
Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lyu, Q., Havaldar, S., Stein, A., Zhang, L., Rao, D., Wong, E., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.20 · Cited by 201
Is GitHub’s Copilot as bad as humans at introducing vulnerabilities in code?
Asare, O., Nagappan, M., & Asokan, N. (2023) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-023-10380-1 · Cited by 128
Espejel, J. L., Ettifouri, E. H., Alassan, M. S. Y., Chouham, E. M., & Dahhane, W. (2023) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100032 · Cited by 148
LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluation
Fakhoury, S., Naik, A., Sakkas, G., Chakraborty, S., & Lahiri, S. K. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3428972 · Cited by 120
Dibia, V. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-demo.11 · Cited by 170
A Review on Code Generation with LLMs: Application and Evaluation
Wang, J., & Chen, Y. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Medical Artificial Intelligence (MedAI) · doi:10.1109/medai59581.2023.00044 · Cited by 152
Liu, M. X., Sarkar, A., Negreanu, C., Zorn, B., Williams, J., Toronto, N., & Gordon, A. D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580817 · Cited by 119
Foundation models in smart agriculture: Basics, opportunities, and challenges
Li, J., Xu, M., Xiang, L., Chen, D., Zhuang, W., Yin, X., & Li, Z. (2024) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.109032 · Cited by 159
Measuring GitHub Copilot's Impact on Productivity
Ziegler, A., Kalliamvakou, E., Li, X. A., Rice, A., Rifkin, D., Simister, S., Sittampalam, G., & Aftandilian, E. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3633453 · Cited by 124
Investigating Code Generation Performance of ChatGPT with Crowdsourcing Social Data
Feng, Y., Vanam, S., Cherukupally, M., Zheng, W., Qiu, M., & Chen, H. (2023) · 2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac57700.2023.00117 · Cited by 117
GPT4AIGChip: Towards Next-Generation AI Accelerator Design Automation via Large Language Models
Fu, Y., Zhang, Y., Yu, Z., Li, S., Ye, Z., Li, C., Wan, C., & Lin, Y. (2023) · doi:10.1109/iccad57390.2023.10323953 · Cited by 144
Fine-tuning and prompt engineering for large language models-based code review automation
Pornprasit, C., & Tantithamthavorn, C. K. (2024) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107523 · Cited by 151
Large language models for chemistry robotics
Yoshikawa, N., Skreta, M., Darvish, K., Arellano-Rubach, S., Ji, Z., Bjørn Kristensen, L., Li, A. Z., Zhao, Y., Xu, H., Kuramshin, A., et al. (2023) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1007/s10514-023-10136-2 · Cited by 112
Evaluating the use of large language model in identifying top research questions in gastroenterology
Lahat, A., Shachar, E., Avidan, B., Shatz, Z., Glicksberg, B. S., & Klang, E. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-31412-2 · Cited by 111
Wei, Y., Xia, C. S., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616271 · Cited by 115
Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09388 · Cited by 17,283
Self-citationAn Empirical Study on Fine-Tuning Large Language Models of Code for Automated Program Repair
Huang, K., Meng, X., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Wang, W., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00181 · Cited by 113
Ghafarollahi, A., & Buehler, M. J. (2024) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00013g · Cited by 167
MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation
Cassano, F., Gouwar, J., Nguyen, D., Nguyen, S., Phipps-Costin, L., Pinckney, D., Yee, M.-H., Zi, Y., Anderson, C. J., Feldman, M. Q., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3267446 · Cited by 394
“Over the past few years, code generation models have demonstrated their utility on a wide variety of software engineering tasks, including test generation, documentation generation, and even synthesizing working programs from natural language descriptions [1], [3], [4], [5], [6].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGenerative AI for Programming Education: Benchmarking ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Human Tutors
Phung, T., Pădurean, V.-A., Cambronero, J., Gulwani, S., Kohn, T., Majumdar, R., Singla, A., & Soares, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 2 · doi:10.1145/3568812.3603476 · Cited by 112
Assessment of chemistry knowledge in large language models that generate code
White, A. D., Hocky, G. M., Gandhi, H. A., Ansari, M., Cox, S., Wellawatte, G. P., Sasmal, S., Yang, Z., Liu, K., Singh, Y., et al. (2023) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d2dd00087c · Cited by 130
Savelka, J., Agarwal, A., Bogart, C., Song, Y., & Sakr, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3587102.3588792 · Cited by 109
TaskMatrix.AI: Completing Tasks by Connecting Foundation Models with Millions of APIs
Liang, Y., Wu, C., Song, T., Wu, W., Xia, Y., Liu, Y., Ou, Y., Lu, S., Ji, L., Mao, S., et al. (2024) · Intelligent Computing · doi:10.34133/icomputing.0063 · Cited by 108
Efficient Methods for Natural Language Processing: A Survey
Treviso, M., Lee, J.-U., Ji, T., van Aken, B., Cao, Q., Ciosici, M. R., Hassid, M., Heafield, K., Hooker, S., Raffel, C., et al. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00577 · Cited by 156
LogGPT: Exploring ChatGPT for Log-Based Anomaly Detection
Qi, J., Huang, S., Luan, Z., Yang, S., Fung, C., Yang, H., Qian, D., Shang, J., Xiao, Z., & Wu, Z. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE International Conference on Smart City; IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS) · doi:10.1109/hpcc-dss-smartcity-dependsys60770.2023.00045 · Cited by 136
Wang, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Wu, Z., Mo, T., Lu, Q., Wang, W., Li, R., Xu, J., Tang, X., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3768165 · Cited by 106
Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Survey
Chang, T. A., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00492 · Cited by 105
ChatGPT 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) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4352931 · Cited by 708
On Hardware Security Bug Code Fixes by Prompting Large Language Models
Ahmad, B., Thakur, S., Tan, B., Karri, R., & Pearce, H. A. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2024.3374558 · Cited by 149
LLM for SoC Security: A Paradigm Shift
Saha, D., Tarek, S., Yahyaei, K., Saha, S. K., Zhou, J., Tehranipoor, M. M., & Farahmandi, F. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3427369 · Cited by 128
Exploring and Unleashing the Power of Large Language Models in Automated Code Translation
Yang, Z., Liu, F., Yu, Z., Keung, J. W., Li, J., Liu, S., Hong, Y., Ma, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3660778 · Cited by 104
How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilities
Wu, Y., Jiang, N., Pham, H. V., Lutellier, T., Davis, J., Tan, L., Babkin, P., & Shah, S. (2023) · ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA) · doi:10.1145/3597926.3598135 · Cited by 148
(Security) Assertions by Large Language Models
Kande, R., Pearce, H. A., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., Thakur, S., Karri, R., & Rajendran, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2024.3372809 · Cited by 160
Tool learning with large language models: a survey
Qu, C., Dai, S., Wei, X., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., Xu, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40678-2 · Cited by 266
A Survey of Generative AI Applications
Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Merchan, E. E. G. (2024) · Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2024.801.818 · Cited by 101
What Makes Good In-Context Demonstrations for Code Intelligence Tasks with LLMs?
Gao, S., Wen, X.-C., Gao, C., Wang, W., Zhang, H., & Lyu, M. R. (2023) · 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00109 · Cited by 106
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
