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 601–700 of 1,324
Artificial intelligence as a catalyst for combustion science and engineering
Ihme, M., & Chung, W. T. (2024) · Proceedings of the Combustion Institute · doi:10.1016/j.proci.2024.105730 · Cited by 22
Students' Perspectives on AI Code Completion: Benefits and Challenges
Takerngsaksiri, W., Warusavitarne, C., Yaacoub, C., Keng Hou, M. H., & Tantithamthavorn, C. (2024) · 2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac61105.2024.00252 · Cited by 18
The GitHub Recent Bugs Dataset for Evaluating LLM-Based Debugging Applications
Lee, J. Y., Kang, S., Yoon, J., & Yoo, S. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) · doi:10.1109/icst60714.2024.00049 · Cited by 18
DeepTrace: Learning to Optimize Contact Tracing in Epidemic Networks With Graph Neural Networks
Tan, C. W., Yu, P.-D., Chen, S., & Poor, H. V. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks · doi:10.1109/tsipn.2025.3530346 · Cited by 18
A Survey of Reasoning with Foundation ModelsPreprint
Sun, J., Zheng, C., Xie, E., Liu, Z., Chu, R., Liu, J., Xu, J., Ding, M., Li, H., Geng, M., et al. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ac4sp · Cited by 143
OctoPack: Instruction Tuning Code Large Language Models
Muennighoff, N., Liu, Q., Zebaze, A., Zheng, Q., Hui, B., Zhuo, T. Y., Singh, S., Tang, X., von Werra, L., & Longpre, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07124 · Cited by 245
“Thus, we expand the code synthesis benchmark HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2023) to cover all three input-output combinations for six languages (Figure 3).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBeyond Accuracy: Investigating Error Types in GPT-4 Responses to USMLE Questions
Roy, S., Khatua, A., Ghoochani, F., Hadler, U., Nejdl, W., & Ganguly, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657882 · Cited by 17
Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models
Nye, M., Andreassen, A. J., Gur-Ari, G., Michalewski, H., Austin, J., Bieber, D., Dohan, D., Lewkowycz, A., Bosma, M., Luan, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00114 · Cited by 144
Mammides, C., & Papadopoulos, H. (2024) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14398 · Cited by 17
Building hybrid AI models in chemical engineering: A tutorial review
Chakraborty, A., Taskiran, N. P., Kottooru, R., Mann, V., & Venkatasubramanian, V. (2025) · Computers & Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2025.109236 · Cited by 20
Impact of Evaluation Methodologies on Code Summarization
Nie, P., Zhang, J., Li, J. J., Mooney, R., & Gligoric, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.339 · Cited by 20
Hybrid Serverless Computing: Opportunities and Challenges
Castro, P., Isahagian, V., Muthusamy, V., & Slominski, A. (2023) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-26633-1_3 · Cited by 17
Using Architecture Decision Records in Open Source Projects—An MSR Study on GitHub
Buchgeher, G., Schöberl, S., Geist, V., Dorninger, B., Haindl, P., & Weinreich, R. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3287654 · Cited by 17
Navigating Complexity in Software Engineering: A Prototype for Comparing GPT-n Solutions
Treude, C. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering (BotSE) · doi:10.1109/botse59190.2023.00008 · Cited by 17
A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot
Asare, O., Nagappan, M., & Asokan, N. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639154 · Cited by 31
Evaluation on ChatGPT for Chinese Language Understanding
Li, L., Zhang, H., Li, C., You, H., & Cui, W. (2023) · Data Intelligence · doi:10.1162/dint_a_00232 · Cited by 22
COLDECO: An End User Spreadsheet Inspection Tool for AI-Generated Code
Ferdowsi, K., Williams, J. M., Drosos, I., Gordon, A. D., Negreanu, C., Polikarpova, N., Sarkar, A., & Zorn, B. G. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl-hcc57772.2023.00017 · Cited by 18
REEF: A Framework for Collecting Real-World Vulnerabilities and Fixes
Wang, C., Li, Z., Pena, Y., Gao, S., Chen, S., Wang, S., Gao, C., & Lyu, M. R.-T. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00199 · Cited by 23
Towards Automatically Addressing Self-Admitted Technical Debt: How Far Are We?
Mastropaolo, A., Penta, M. D., & Bavota, G. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00103 · Cited by 21
Out of the Cage: How Stochastic Parrots Win in Cyber Security Environments
Rigaki, M., Lukáš, O., Catania, C., & Garcia, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.5220/0012391800003636 · Cited by 17
Lakhnati, Y., Pascher, M., & Gerken, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2024.1347538 · Cited by 26
Gotcha! This Model Uses My Code! Evaluating Membership Leakage Risks in Code Models
Yang, Z., Zhao, Z., Wang, C., Shi, J., Kim, D., Han, D., & Lo, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3482719 · Cited by 32
An Empirical Cybersecurity Evaluation of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsPreprint
Pearce, H. A., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Karri, R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 17
M6-10T: A Sharing-Delinking Paradigm for Efficient Multi-Trillion Parameter PretrainingPreprint
Lin, J., An, Y., Bai, J., Zhou, C., Jiang, L., Jia, X., Wang, A., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Lin, W., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.03888 · Cited by 23
Agent Lumos: Unified and Modular Training for Open-Source Language Agents
Yin, D., Brahman, F., Ravichander, A., Chandu, K., Chang, K.-W., Choi, Y., & Lin, B. Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.670 · Cited by 17
Robosourcing Educational Resources -- Leveraging Large Language Models for Learnersourcing
Denny, P., Sarsa, S., Hellas, A., & Leinonen, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.04715 · Cited by 21
PrivLM-Bench: A Multi-level Privacy Evaluation Benchmark for Language Models
Li, H., Guo, D., Li, D., Fan, W., Hu, Q., Liu, X., Chan, C., Yao, D., Yao, Y., & Song, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.4 · Cited by 16
Examining Agency, Expertise, and Roles of AI Systems in AI-Mediated Communication
Mieczkowski, H., & Hancock, J. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/asnv4 · Cited by 16
LLM-guided decision-making toolkit for multi-agent reinforcement learning
Li, Z., Zhang, R., Wang, Z., Xie, Z., & Song, Y. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130105 · Cited by 20
Chen, Y., Xiao, S., Song, Y., Li, Z., Sun, L., & Chen, L. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2475991 · Cited by 28
Generating vulnerability security fixes with Code Language Models
Bhandari, G. P., Gavrić, N., & Shalaginov, A. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107786 · Cited by 21
Grishina, A., Hort, M., & Moonen, L. (2023) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616304 · Cited by 21
Benchmarking Language Models for Code Syntax Understanding
Shen, D., Chen, X., Wang, C., Sen, K., & Song, D. X. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.224 · Cited by 25
QAmeleon : Multilingual QA with Only 5 Examples
Agrawal, P., Alberti, C., Huot, F., Maynez, J., Ma, J., Ruder, S., Ganchev, K., Das, D., & Lapata, M. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00625 · Cited by 31
Yekta, M. M. J. (2024) · Meta-Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.metrad.2024.100078 · Cited by 21
Semantic regularization of electromagnetic inverse problems
Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Cui, T. J., del Hougne, P., & Li, L. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48115-5 · Cited by 20
LLMEffiChecker : Understanding and Testing Efficiency Degradation of Large Language Models
Feng, X., Han, X., Chen, S. H., & Yang, W. M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3664812 · Cited by 20
Automatically Improving LLM-based Verilog Generation using EDA Tool Feedback
Blocklove, J., Thakur, S., Tan, B., Pearce, H. A., Garg, S., & Karri, R. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems · doi:10.1145/3723876 · Cited by 16
Are Large Language Models Memorizing Bug Benchmarks?
Ramos, D., Mamede, C., Jain, K., Canelas, P., Gamboa, C., & Goues, C. L. (2025) · International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) · doi:10.1109/llm4code66737.2025.00005 · Cited by 40
Skill-Based Few-Shot Selection for In-Context Learning
An, S., Zhou, B., Lin, Z., Fu, Q., Chen, B., Zheng, N., Chen, W., & Lou, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.831 · Cited by 42
RobotGPT: From ChatGPT to Robot IntelligencePreprint
He, H. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.22569247 · Cited by 16
Addressing Compiler Errors: Stack Overflow or Large Language Models?Preprint
Widjojo, P., & Treude, C. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4529345 · Cited by 16
Bioinfo-Bench: A Simple Benchmark Framework for LLM Bioinformatics Skills EvaluationPreprint
Chen, Q., & Deng, C. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.10.18.563023 · Cited by 16
Public Attitudes Toward ChatGPT on Twitter: Sentiments, Topics, and OccupationsPreprint
Koonchanok, R., Pan, Y., & Jang, H. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3945065/v1 · Cited by 16
Design2Code: Benchmarking Multimodal Code Generation for Automated Front-End Engineering
Si, C., Zhang, Y., Li, R., Yang, Z., Liu, R., & Yang, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.199 · Cited by 17
“On the other hand, the color similarity and the CLIP similarity steadily increase until 4000 − 5000 steps.”
InfluentialOpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents
Wang, X., Li, B., Song, Y., Xu, F. F., Tang, X., Zhuge, M., Pan, J., Song, Y., Li, B., Singh, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.16741 · Cited by 24
Automating traffic model enhancement with AI research agent
Guo, X., Yang, X., Peng, M., Lu, H., Zhu, M., & Yang, H. (2025) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2025.105187 · Cited by 18
Insights from the Frontline: GenAI Utilization Among Software Engineering Students
Choudhuri, R., Ramakrishnan, A., Chatterjee, A., Trinkenreich, B., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M. A., & Sarma, A. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) · doi:10.1109/cseet66350.2025.00007 · Cited by 23
Desdevises, J. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1628486 · Cited by 18
Human–robot collaborative visual inspection with Large Language Models
Tasneem, O., & Pieters, R. (2025) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2025.103154 · Cited by 18
Coherence boosting: When your pretrained language model is not paying enough attention
Malkin, N., Wang, Z., & Jojić, N. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.565 · Cited by 30
Machine Learning for Aggregate Computing: a Research Roadmap
Aguzzi, G., Casadei, R., & Mirko Viroli, D. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) · doi:10.1109/icdcsw56584.2022.00032 · Cited by 15
Salikutluk, V., Koert, D., & Jäkel, F. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230081 · Cited by 16
Enriching Source Code with Contextual Data for Code Completion Models: An Empirical Study
van Dam, T., Izadi, M., & Arie Van Deursen, A. (2023) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr59073.2023.00035 · Cited by 21
Diverse Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Dialogue State Tracking
King, B., & Flanigan, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.344 · Cited by 22
Distilling Script Knowledge from Large Language Models for Constrained Language Planning
Yuan, S., Chen, J., Fu, Z., Ge, X., Shah, S., Jankowski, C., Xiao, Y., & Yang, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.236 · Cited by 37
Text-to-SQL Error Correction with Language Models of Code
Chen, Z., Chen, S., WHITE, M. J., Mooney, R. J., Payani, A., Srinivasa, J., Su, Y., & Sun, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.117 · Cited by 15
Plansformer Tool: Demonstrating Generation of Symbolic Plans Using Transformers
Pallagani, V., Muppasani, B. C., Srivastava, B., Rossi, F., Lior Horesh, C., Murugesan, K., Loreggia, A., Fabiano, F., Joseph, R., & Kethepalli, Y. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/839 · Cited by 20
(2023) · International Workshop on Computer Science and Engineering (WCSE) · doi:10.18178/wcse.2023.06.031 · Cited by 19
Grace: Language Models Meet Code Edits
Gupta, P., Khare, A., Bajpai, Y., Chakraborty, S., Gulwani, S., Kanade, A., Radhakrishna, A., Soares, G., & Tiwari, A. (2023) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616253 · Cited by 32
Sänger, M., Mecquenem, N. D., Lewińska, K. E., Bountris, V., Lehmann, F., Leser, U., & Kosch, T. (2024) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giae030 · Cited by 20
A Vision Check-up for Language Models
Sharma, P., Shaham, T. R., Baradad, M., Rodriíuez-Muñoz, A., Duggal, S., Isola, P., Torralba, A., & Fu, S. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01366 · Cited by 15
Qu, Y., Huang, S., Li, Y., Bai, T., Chen, X., Wang, X., Li, L., & Yao, Y. (2025) · Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10515-024-00485-2 · Cited by 19
Data Contamination Quiz: A Tool to Detect and Estimate Contamination in Large Language Models
Golchin, S., & Surdeanu, M. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl.a.20 · Cited by 85
Moroz, E. A., Grizkevich, V. O., & Novozhilov, I. M. (2022) · IEEE Conference of Russian Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering · doi:10.1109/elconrus54750.2022.9755659 · Cited by 15
Fold2Vec: Towards a Statement-Based Representation of Code for Code Comprehension
Bertolotti, F., & Cazzola, W. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3514232 · Cited by 15
Learning to Synthesize Programs as Interpretable and Generalizable PoliciesPreprint
Trivedi, D., Zhang, J. M., Sun, S.-H., & Lim, J. J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.13643 · Cited by 22
Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Discovery: A Model of Prioritized Search
Agrawal, A. K., McHale, J., & Oettl, A. (2023) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w31558 · Cited by 15
Performance, Workload, Emotion, and Self-Efficacy of Novice Programmers Using AI Code Generation
Gardella, N., Pettit, R., & Riggs, S. L. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 · doi:10.1145/3649217.3653615 · Cited by 15
Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code
Rodriguez-Cardenas, D., Palacio, D. N., Khati, D., Burke, H., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) · doi:10.1109/icsme58846.2023.00040 · Cited by 14
Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Soylu, D., Liao, T., Creel, K., & Liang, P. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2961271/v1 · Cited by 14
Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks
Kwa, T., West, B., Becker, J., Deng, A., Garcia, K., Hasin, M., Jawhar, S., Kinniment, M., Rush, N., Von Arx, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14499 · Cited by 14
Self-citationQuery Rewriting for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Ma, X., Gong, Y., He, P., Zhao, H., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14283 · Cited by 14
Lawal, S., Zhao, X., Rios, A., Krishnan, R., & Ferraiolo, D. F. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) · doi:10.1109/tps-isa62245.2024.00048 · Cited by 14
Don’t settle for the first! How many GitHub Copilot solutions should you check?
Oertel, J., Klünder, J., & Hebig, R. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107737 · Cited by 17
Aditi, F., & Hsiao, M. S. (2022) · Proceedings - Asian Test Symposium/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/ats56056.2022.00034 · Cited by 17
ClawSAT: Towards Both Robust and Accurate Code Models
Jia, J., Srikant, S., Mitrovska, T., Gan, C., Chang, S., Liu, S., & O’Reilly, U.-M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) · doi:10.1109/saner56733.2023.00029 · Cited by 14
Zero-shot Prompting for Code Complexity Prediction Using GitHub Copilot
Siddiq, M. L., Samee, A., Azgor, S. R., Haider, M. A., Sawraz, S. I., & Santos, J. C. S. (2023) · IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Natural Language-Based Software Engineering (NLBSE) · doi:10.1109/nlbse59153.2023.00018 · Cited by 17
Mosca, E., Abdalla, M. H. I., Basso, P., Musumeci, M., & Groh, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.trustnlp-1.17 · Cited by 14
Wuisang, M. C., Kurniawan, M., Santosa, K. A. W., Gunawan, A. A. S., & Saputra, K. E. (2023) · International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic) · doi:10.1109/isemantic59612.2023.10295323 · Cited by 14
Discriminating Human-authored from ChatGPT-Generated Code Via Discernable Feature Analysis
Li, K., Hong, S., Fu, C., Zhang, Y., & Liu, M. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW) · doi:10.1109/issrew60843.2023.00059 · Cited by 18
Equation-based and data-driven modeling: Open-source software current state and future directions
Gunnell, L., Nicholson, B. L., & Hedengren, J. D. (2023) · Computers & Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108521 · Cited by 13
ChatGPT for GTFS: benchmarking LLMs on GTFS semantics... and retrieval
Devunuri, S., Qiam, S., & Lehe, L. (2024) · Public Transport · doi:10.1007/s12469-024-00354-x · Cited by 19
Santhi, T. M., & Srinivasan, K. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2024.3417252 · Cited by 18
Pytester: Deep reinforcement learning for text-to-testcase generation
Takerngsaksiri, W., Charakorn, R., Tantithamthavorn, C. K., & Li, Y.-F. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.112381 · Cited by 27
Laurel: Unblocking Automated Verification with Large Language Models
Mugnier, E., Gonzalez, E. A., Polikarpova, N., Jhala, R., & Yuanyuan, Z. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3720499 · Cited by 18
Li, Y., Shao, S., Milling, M., & Schuller, B. W. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1629725 · Cited by 17
Towards an AI Assistant for Power Grid Operators
Marot, A., Rozier, A., Dussartre, M., Crochepierre, L., & Donnot, B. (2022) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia220191 · Cited by 28
The Influence of ChatGPT and AI Tools on Vietnamese EducationPreprint
Nguyen, T. T. L. (2023) · EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/bx9ft · Cited by 14
Generative AI-Based Text Generation Methods Using Pre-Trained GPT 2 ModelPreprint
Pandey, R., Waghela, H., Rakshit, S., Rangari, A., Singh, A., Kumar, R., Ghoshal, R., & Sen, J. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171216659.95569463/v1 · Cited by 15
Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data
Zhao, A., Wu, Y., Yue, Y., Wu, T., Xu, Q., Yue, Y., Lin, M., Wang, S., Wu, Q., Zheng, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 13
User-Customizable Transpilation of Scripting Languages
Wang, B., Kolluri, A., Nikolić, I., Baluta, T., & Saxena, P. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3586034 · Cited by 13
Exploring Continual Learning for Code Generation Models
Yadav, P., Sun, Q., Ding, H., Li, X., Zhang, D., Tan, M., Bhatia, P., Ma, X., Nallapati, R. M., Ramanathan, M. K., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.68 · Cited by 15
An Exploratory Literature Study on Sharing and Energy Use of Language Models for Source Code
Hort, M., Grishina, A., & Moonen, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the ... ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement/International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement · doi:10.1109/esem56168.2023.10304803 · Cited by 15
Who is Smarter? An Empirical Study of AI-Based Smart Contract Creation
Karanjai, R., Li, E., Xu, L., & Shi, W. L. (2023) · Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS) · doi:10.1109/brains59668.2023.10316829 · Cited by 17
ChatGPT and computational-based research: benefits, drawbacks, and machine learning applications
Atkinson, C. F. (2023) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-023-00091-3 · Cited by 18
Automatic Model Selection with Large Language Models for Reasoning
Zhao, J., Xie, Y., Kawaguchi, K., He, J., & Xie, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.55 · Cited by 39
The Shifted and The Overlooked: A Task-oriented Investigation of User-GPT Interactions
Ouyang, S., Wang, S., Liu, Y., Zhong, M., Jiao, Y., Iter, D., Pryzant, R., Zhu, C., Ji, H., & Han, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.146 · Cited by 29
Using LLMs in Cyber-Physical Systems for Agriculture - ZEMELA
Stoyanov, S. N., Kumurdjieva, M., Tabakova-Komsalova, V. V., & Doukovska, L. (2023) · International Conference on Big Data, Knowledge and Control Systems Engineering (BdKCSE) · doi:10.1109/bdkcse59280.2023.10339738 · Cited by 13
Counterexample Guided Inductive Synthesis Using Large Language Models and Satisfiability Solving
Jha, S., Jha, S., Lincoln, P., Bastian, N. D., Velasquez, A., Ewetz, R., & Neema, S. (2023) · IEEE Military Communications Conference · doi:10.1109/milcom58377.2023.10356332 · Cited by 18
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
