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 301–400 of 1,324
Diverse Demonstrations Improve In-context Compositional Generalization
Levy, I., Bogin, B., & Berant, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.78 · Cited by 66
CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing
Gou, Z., Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Yang, Y., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.11738 · Cited by 561
“This can result in surprising performance deterioration, such as the 1.8-point decrease observed on text-davinci-003, and it further exacerbated with Self-Refine on Codex due to the unreliable feedback from the LLMs regarding program correctness.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIs Education Losing the Race with Technology?
OECD (2023) · Educational research and innovation · doi:10.1787/73105f99-en · Cited by 86
HPC-GPT: Integrating Large Language Model for High-Performance Computing
Ding, X., Chen, L., Emani, M. K., Liao, C., Lin, P., Vanderbruggen, T., Xie, Z., Cerpa, A., & Du, W. (2023) · International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC) · doi:10.1145/3624062.3624172 · Cited by 63
CoverUp: Effective High Coverage Test Generation for Python
Pizzorno, J. A., & Berger, E. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3729398 · Cited by 84
CCTEST: Testing and Repairing Code Completion Systems
Li, Z., Wang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, H., Chen, D., Wang, S., & Gao, C. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00110 · Cited by 70
KNOD: Domain Knowledge Distilled Tree Decoder for Automated Program Repair
Jiang, N., Lutellier, T., Lou, Y., Tan, L., Goldwasser, D., & Zhang, X. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00111 · Cited by 74
MaScQA: investigating materials science knowledge of large language models
Zaki, M. F. M., Jayadeva, Mausam, M., & Krishnan, N. M. A. (2023) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d3dd00188a · Cited by 66
RobotGPT: From ChatGPT to Robot IntelligencePreprint
He, H. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22569247.v1 · Cited by 55
SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?
Jimenez, C. E., Yang, J., Wettig, A., Yao, S., Pei, K., Press, O., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06770 · Cited by 72
“Following precedent in code generation for evaluation in Pass@1 (Chen et al., 2021; Rozière et al., 2023), we simply use greedy decoding for all models.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPrompt Engineering or Fine-Tuning: An Empirical Assessment of LLMs for Code
Shin, J., Tang, C. J., Mohati, T., Nayebi, M., Wang, S., & Hemmati, H. (2025) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00082 · Cited by 165
Can We Edit Factual Knowledge by In-Context Learning?
Zheng, C., Li, L., Dong, Q., Fan, Y., Wu, Z., Xu, J., & Chang, B. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.296 · Cited by 54
Large language models for drug discovery and development
Zheng, Y., Koh, H. Y., Ju, J., Yang, M., May, L. T., Webb, G. I., Li, L., Pan, S., & Church, G. M. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101346 · Cited by 121
ACT-SQL: In-Context Learning for Text-to-SQL with Automatically-Generated Chain-of-Thought
Zhang, H., Cao, R., Chen, L., Xu, H., & Yu, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.227 · Cited by 92
A systematic literature review on the impact of AI models on the security of code generation
Negri-Ribalta, C., Géraud, R., Sergeeva, A., & Lenzini, G. (2024) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2024.1386720 · Cited by 67
Chain-of-Thought in Neural Code Generation: From and for Lightweight Language Models
Yang, G., Zhou, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X., Zhuo, T. Y., & Chen, T. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3440503 · Cited by 75
Benchmarking DNA foundation models for genomic and genetic tasks
Feng, H., Wu, L., Zhao, B., Huff, C. D., Zhang, J. J., Wu, J., Lin, L., Wei, P., & Wu, C. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65823-8 · Cited by 83
Battle of the Wordsmiths: Comparing ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, and BardPreprint
Borji, A., & Mohammadian, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4476855 · Cited by 58
Hadi, M. U., Al-Tashi, Q., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Muneer, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M. B., Akhtar, N., Hassan, S. Z., et al. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23589741.v3 · Cited by 71
Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations
Perez, E., Ringer, S., Lukošiūtė, K., Nguyen, K., Chen, E., Heiner, S., Pettit, C., Olsson, C., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09251 · Cited by 53
Self-citationBenchmarking large language models for genomic knowledge with GeneTuring
Shang, X., Liao, X., Ji, Z., & Hou, W. (2025) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf492 · Cited by 53
Exploring Chain of Thought Style Prompting for Text-to-SQL
Tai, C.-Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, T., Deng, X. B., & Sun, H. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.327 · Cited by 92
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15938 · Cited by 52
“2) HumanEval_R is reconstructed on HumanEval, which replaces its function signature, translates its requirements into German, French, and Chinese, selects different public test cases from the work (Dong et al., 2023a) to prompt, and remains the private test cases for testing.”
InfluentialChain-of-Thought Reasoning in Tabular Language Models
Zheng, M., Yang, H., Jiang, W., Lin, Z., Lyu, Y., She, Q., & Wang, W. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.734 · Cited by 52
HPC-Coder: Modeling Parallel Programs using Large Language Models
Nichols, D., Marathe, A., Menon, H., Gamblin, T., & Bhatele, A. S. (2024) · ISC High Performance (ISC) · doi:10.23919/isc.2024.10528929 · Cited by 72
Natural Language to Code Translation with Execution
Shi, F., Fried, D., Ghazvininejad, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Wang, S. I. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.231 · Cited by 105
An Empirical Analysis of Memorization in Fine-tuned Autoregressive Language Models
Mireshghallah, F., Uniyal, A., Wang, T., Evans, D. M., & Berg-Kirkpatrick, T. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.119 · Cited by 115
Enhancing Text-to-SQL Capabilities of Large Language Models: A Study on Prompt Design Strategies
Nan, L., Zhao, Y., Zou, W., Ri, N., Tae, J., Zhang, E., Cohan, A., & Radev, D. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.996 · Cited by 102
Driving Factors of Generative AI Adoption in New Product Development Teams from a UTAUT Perspective
Xia, Y., & Chen, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2375686 · Cited by 58
A Survey on Symbolic Knowledge Distillation of Large Language Models
Acharya, K., Velasquez, A., & Song, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3428519 · Cited by 56
ThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data
Ott, S., Hebenstreit, K., Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Moradi, M., Mayrhauser, M., Praas, R., Winther, O., & Samwald, M. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02433-3 · Cited by 66
The False Promise of Imitating Proprietary LLMs
Gudibande, A., Wallace, E., Snell, C., Geng, X., Liu, H., Abbeel, P., Levine, S., & Song, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15717 · Cited by 48
“We evaluate using human and GPT-4 evaluations (blind pairwise comparisons with ChatGPT) as well as accuracy on canonical NLP benchmarks (MMLU, NQ, HumanEval).”
MethodVisual Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Knowledge-Based Visual Reasoning
Chen, Z., Zhou, Q., Shen, Y., Hong, Y., Sun, Z., Gutfreund, D., & Gan, C. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i2.27888 · Cited by 48
LLM4VV: Developing LLM-driven testsuite for compiler validation
Munley, C., Jarmusch, A., & Chandrasekaran, S. (2024) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.05.034 · Cited by 55
Automatically Generating CS Learning Materials with Large Language Models
MacNeil, S., Tran, A., Leinonen, J., Denny, P. C., Kim, J., Hellas, A., Bernstein, S., & Sarsa, S. (2022) · ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) · doi:10.1145/3545947.3569630 · Cited by 48
A Review of Current Trends, Techniques, and Challenges in Large Language Models (LLMs)
Patil, R., & Gudivada, A. V. (2024) · doi:10.20944/preprints202402.0357.v1 · Cited by 296
Shah, A., Ranka, P., Dedhia, U., Prasad, S., Muni, S., & Bhowmick, K. (2023) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2023.01410110 · Cited by 47
CAT-LM Training Language Models on Aligned Code And Tests
Rao, N., Jain, K., Alon, U., Goues, C. L., & Hellendoorn, V. J. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00193 · Cited by 70
Quality, Accuracy, and Bias in ChatGPT-Based Summarization of Medical Abstracts
Hake, J., Crowley, M., Coy, A., Shanks, D., Eoff, A., Kirmer-Voss, K., Dhanda, G., & Parente, D. J. (2024) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.3075 · Cited by 61
A Security Risk Taxonomy for Prompt-Based Interaction With Large Language Models
Derner, E., Batistič, K., Zahálka, J., & Babuška, R. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3450388 · Cited by 74
LLMatic: Neural Architecture Search Via Large Language Models And Quality Diversity Optimization
Nasir, M. U., Earle, S., Togelius, J., James, S., & Cleghorn, C. (2024) · Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference · doi:10.1145/3638529.3654017 · Cited by 52
Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning
Ye, X., Iyer, S. V., Çelikyılmaz, A., Stoyanov, V., Durrett, G., & Pasunuru, R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.273 · Cited by 79
IdealGPT: Iteratively Decomposing Vision and Language Reasoning via Large Language Models
You, H., Sun, R., Wang, Z., Chen, L., Wang, G., Ayyubi, H., Chang, K.-W., & Chang, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.755 · Cited by 75
DreamCodeVR: Towards Democratizing Behavior Design in Virtual Reality with Speech-Driven Programming
Giunchi, D., Numan, N., Gatti, E., & Steed, A. J. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) · doi:10.1109/vr58804.2024.00078 · Cited by 57
Natural Language Interfaces for Tabular Data Querying and Visualization: A Survey
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Song, Y., Wei, V. J., Tian, Y., Qi, Y., Chan, J. H., Wong, R. C.-W., & Yang, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3400824 · Cited by 66
Long, C., Subburam, D., Lowe, K., dos Santos, A., Zhang, J. J., Hwang, S. W., Saduka, N., Horev, Y., Su, T., Côté, D. W. J., et al. (2024) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/ohn.864 · Cited by 47
Fully Autonomous Programming with Large Language Models
Liventsev, V., Grishina, A., Härmä, A., & Moonen, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference · doi:10.1145/3583131.3590481 · Cited by 45
Generative AI and Its Educational Implications
Łodzikowski, K., Foltz, P. W., & Behrens, J. T. (2024) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64487-0_2 · Cited by 45
Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report
Hui, B., Yang, J., Cui, Z., Yang, J., Liu, D., Zhang, L., Liu, T., Zhang, J., Yu, B., Lu, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12186 · Cited by 65
“5 (Bai et al., 2023a), and Code-Stral (team, 2024), have demonstrated superior performance in coding evaluations (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021; Cassano et al., 2022; Jain et al., 2024).”
BackgroundNS3D: Neuro-Symbolic Grounding of 3D Objects and Relations
Hsu, J., Mao, J., & Wu, J. (2023) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00257 · Cited by 51
A unified industrial large knowledge model framework in Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing
Lee, J., & Su, H. (2024) · International Journal of AI for Materials and Design · doi:10.36922/ijamd.3681 · Cited by 64
TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Models
Aghakhani, H., Dai, W., Manoel, A., Fernandes, X., Kharkar, A., Kruegel, C., Vigna, G., Evans, D., Zorn, B., & Sim, R. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00140 · Cited by 72
Generative AI in the context of assistive technologies: Trends, limitations and future directions
Fu, B., Hadid, A., & Damer, N. (2024) · Image and Vision Computing · doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2024.105347 · Cited by 57
Federated and edge learning for large language models
Piccialli, F., Chiaro, D., Qi, P., Bellandi, V., & Damiani, E. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102840 · Cited by 56
Industrial Foundation Models (IFMs) for intelligent manufacturing: A systematic review
Zhao, S., Liu, S., Jiang, Y., Zhao, B. M., Lv, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Zhong, R. Y. (2025) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2025.06.011 · Cited by 50
Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models
Anil, C., Wu, Y., Andreassen, A., Lewkowycz, A., Misra, V., Ramasesh, V., Slone, A., Gur-Ari, G., Dyer, E., & Neyshabur, B. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04901 · Cited by 44
“The performance of OpenAI’s Codex model [18] on the variable assignment task is also provided.”
MethodSelf-citationBrain-Inspired Remote Sensing Foundation Models and Open Problems: A Comprehensive Survey
Jiao, L., Huang, Z., Lu, X., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., Hou, B., Yang, S., Liu, F., et al. (2023) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3316302 · Cited by 49
On the Effectiveness of Transfer Learning for Code Search
Salza, P., Schwizer, C., Gu, J. N., & Gall, H. C. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2022.3192755 · Cited by 49
Hadi, M. U., Al-Tashi, Q., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Muneer, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M. B., Akhtar, N., Hassan, S. Z., et al. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23589741.v2 · Cited by 54
Clover: Closed-Loop Verifiable Code Generation
Sun, C., Sheng, Y., Padon, O., & Barrett, C. (2024) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65112-0_7 · Cited by 43
A survey on machine learning techniques applied to source code
Sharma, T., Kechagia, M., Georgiou, S., Tiwari, R., Vats, I., Moazen, H., & Sarro, F. (2023) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111934 · Cited by 159
GeoCode-GPT: A large language model for geospatial code generation
Hou, S., Shen, Z., Zhao, A., Liang, J., Gui, Z., Guan, X., Li, R., & Wu, H. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2025.104456 · Cited by 53
Enhanced automated code vulnerability repair using large language models
de-Fitero-Dominguez, D., Garcia-Lopez, E., Garcia-Cabot, A., & Martinez-Herraiz, J.-J. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109291 · Cited by 43
ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models
Wang, S., Li, Z., Qian, H., Yang, C., Wang, Z., Shang, M., Kumar, V., Tan, S., Ray, B., Bhatia, P., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.773 · Cited by 42
Calculon: a methodology and tool for high-level co-design of systems and large language models
Isaev, M., McDonald, N., Dennison, L. R., & Vuduc, R. W. (2023) · International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC) · doi:10.1145/3581784.3607102 · Cited by 58
Better Patching Using LLM Prompting, via Self-Consistency
Ahmed, T., & Dévanbu, P. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00065 · Cited by 56
GPT-4 vs. GPT-3Preprint
Koubâa, A. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22312330.v1 · Cited by 46
Leveraging generative AI for clinical evidence synthesis needs to ensure trustworthiness
Zhang, G., Jin, Q., Jered McInerney, D., Chen, Y., Wang, F., Cole, C. L., Yang, Q., Wang, Y., Malin, B. A., Peleg, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104640 · Cited by 40
The Plastic Surgery Hypothesis in the Era of Large Language Models
Xia, C. S., Ding, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023) · 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00047 · Cited by 67
Hajipour, H., Haßler, K., Holz, T., Schönherr, L., & Fritz, M. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml59370.2024.00040 · Cited by 87
Yang, Y., Zhou, X., Mao, R., Xu, J., Yang, L., Zhang, Y., Shen, H., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112234 · Cited by 54
Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts?
Ahmed, T., Dévanbu, P., Treude, C., & Pradel, M. (2025) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00086 · Cited by 105
Exploring the Learnability of Program Synthesizers by Novice Programmers
Jayagopal, D., Lubin, J., & Chasins, S. E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3526113.3545659 · Cited by 40
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40
The SciQA Scientific Question Answering Benchmark for Scholarly Knowledge
Auer, S., Barone, D. A. C., Bartz, C., Cortes, E. G., Jaradeh, M. Y., Karras, O., Koubarakis, M., Mouromtsev, D. I., Pliukhin, D., Radyush, D., et al. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33607-z · Cited by 60
Fuzzing Automatic Differentiation in Deep-Learning Libraries
Yang, C., Deng, Y., Yao, J., Tu, Y., Li, H., & Zhang, L. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00105 · Cited by 45
Teaching Code LLMs to Use Autocompletion Tools in Repository-Level Code Generation
Wang, C., Zhang, J., Feng, Y., Li, T., Sun, W., Liu, Y., & Peng, X. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3714462 · Cited by 40
“Recent advancements have introduced a variety of code large language models (LLMs) [7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 28, 29, 33, 37, 46, 53, 54] constructed upon the Transformer model architecture [45], achieving promising performance in code-related applications [19, 20, 47—50, 52, 57, 59, 60].”
InfluentialThe Crowdless Future? Generative AI and Creative Problem Solving
Boussioux, L., N. Lane, J., Zhang, M., Jacimovic, V., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4533642 · Cited by 343
On Codex Prompt Engineering for OCL Generation: An Empirical Study
Abukhalaf, S., Hamdaqa, M., & Khomh, F. (2023) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr59073.2023.00033 · Cited by 53
GPThreats-3: Is Automatic Malware Generation a Threat?
Botacin, M. F. (2023) · IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW) · doi:10.1109/spw59333.2023.00027 · Cited by 48
When Language Model Meets Private Library
Zan, D., Chen, B., Lin, Z., Guan, B., Yongji, W., & Lou, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.21 · Cited by 72
Incremental learning of humanoid robot behavior from natural interaction and large language models
Bärmann, L., Kartmann, R., Peller-Konrad, F., Niehues, J., Waibel, A., & Asfour, T. (2024) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2024.1455375 · Cited by 46
Bayesian Optimization of Catalysis with In-Context Learning
Ramos, M. C., Michtavy, S. S., White, A. D., & Porosoff, M. D. (2026) · ACS Central Science · doi:10.1021/acscentsci.5c02418 · Cited by 103
Leveraging automated unit tests for unsupervised code translation
Roziere, B., Zhang, J. M., Charton, F., Harman, M., Synnaeve, G., & Lample, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.06773 · Cited by 39
Few-Shot Semantic Parsing with Language Models Trained on Code
Shin, R., & Durme, B. V. (2022) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.396 · Cited by 52
Deploying and Evaluating LLMs to Program Service Mobile Robots
Hu, Z., Lucchetti, F., Schlesinger, C., Saxena, Y., Freeman, A., Modak, S., Guha, A., & Biswas, J. (2024) · IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3360020 · Cited by 51
Ding, W., Abdel‐Basset, M., Ali, A. M., & Moustafa, N. (2024) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112663 · Cited by 46
Bias Testing and Mitigation in LLM-based Code Generation
Huang, D., Zhang, J. M., Bu, Q., Xie, X., Chen, J., & Cui, H. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3724117 · Cited by 128
CREF: An LLM-Based Conversational Software Repair Framework for Programming Tutors
Yang, B., Tian, H., Pian, W., Yu, H., Wang, H., Klein, J., Bissyandé, T. F., & Jin, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3650212.3680328 · Cited by 41
Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools
(2024) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.28 · Cited by 37
Large Language Models are Temporal and Causal Reasoners for Video Question Answering
Ko, D., Lee, J. E., Kang, W., Roh, B., & Kim, H. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.261 · Cited by 66
Hot or Cold? Adaptive Temperature Sampling for Code Generation with Large Language Models
Zhu, Y., Li, J., Li, G., Zhao, Y., Li, J., Jin, Z. G., & Mei, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i1.27798 · Cited by 69
Abdel‐Rehim, A., Zenil, H., Orhobor, O. I., Fisher, M., Collins, R. J., Bourne, E., Fearnley, G. W., Tate, E., Smith, H. X., Soldatova, L., et al. (2025) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2024.0674 · Cited by 52
GPT-4 vs. GPT-3.5: A Concise Showdown
Koubaa, A. (2023) · doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0422.v1 · Cited by 37
Almanac: Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Clinical MedicinePreprint
Hiesinger, W., Zakka, C., Chaurasia, A., Shad, R., Dalal, A. R., Kim, J. L., Moor, M., Alexander, K. M., Ashley, E. A., Boyd, J. H., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2883198/v1 · Cited by 40
Phan, L., Gatti, A., Han, Z., & Li, N. (2025) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i1.13973 · Cited by 36
Ranking LLM-Generated Loop Invariants for Program Verification
Chakraborty, S., Lahiri, S., Fakhoury, S., Lal, A., Musuvathi, M., Rastogi, A., Senthilnathan, A., Sharma, R., & Swamy, N. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.614 · Cited by 37
Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction
Zhang, Q., Wang, D., Qian, H., Li, Y., Zhang, T., Huang, M., Xu, K., Li, H., Yan, L., & Qiu, H. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1314 · Cited by 36
Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistants
Sandoval, G., Pearce, H., Nys, T., Karri, R., Garg, S., & Dolan-Gavitt, B. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.09727 · Cited by 52
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
