Program Synthesis with Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
This paper explores the limits of the current generation of large language models for program synthesis in general purpose programming languages. We evaluate a collection of such models (with between 244M and 137B parameters) on two new benchmarks, MBPP and MathQA-Python, in both the few-shot and fine-tuning regimes. Our benchmarks are designed to measure the ability of these models to synthesize short Python programs from natural language descriptions. The Mostly Basic Programming Problems (MBPP) dataset contains 974 programming tasks, designed to be solvable by entry-level programmers. The MathQA-Python dataset, a Python version of the MathQA benchmark, contains 23914 problems that evaluate the ability of the models to synthesize code from more complex text. On both datasets, we find that synthesis performance scales log-linearly with model size. Our largest models, even without finetuning on a code dataset, can synthesize solutions to 59.6 percent of the problems from MBPP using few-shot learning with a well-designed prompt. Fine-tuning on a held-out portion of the dataset improves performance by about 10 percentage points across most model sizes. On the MathQA-Python dataset, the largest fine-tuned model achieves 83.8 percent accuracy. Going further, we study the model's ability to engage in dialog about code, incorporating human feedback to improve its solutions. We find that natural language feedback from a human halves the error rate compared to the model's initial prediction. Additionally, we conduct an error analysis to shed light on where these models fall short and what types of programs are most difficult to generate. Finally, we explore the semantic grounding of these models by fine-tuning them to predict the results of program execution. We find that even our best models are generally unable to predict the output of a program given a specific input.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Large pools of test cases can originate from human-generated documentation or GPT-generated unit tests.
“In practice, large pools of test cases, Dj , can either originate from human generated documentation (Nassif et al., 2021;Lemieux et al., 2023) or GPTgenerated unit tests (Austin et al., 2021).”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Austin et al. do not describe GPT-generated unit tests as the source of their test cases. Section 2.1 (p. 4) says crowdworkers wrote three test cases for each MBPP problem; Section 3 (p. 5) describes the model generating code that was checked against those tests, not generating the tests. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCode data substantially enhances program synthesis capabilities.
“Code data (e.g., from Stack Exchange and GitHub) substantially enhances program synthesis capabilities [37,38].”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Section 3 (p. 5) says the models were trained partly on websites containing code, and the Introduction (p. 2) explains how training on code can help models learn programming conventions. But the paper does not establish that code data substantially improved synthesis relative to training without it. It also says source-code files were not specifically included, so GitHub code is not supported as an example of this paper’s training data. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNeural code synthesis approaches to code completion generate suggestions by using a language model to predict the completion from the prompt.
“Neural code synthesis approaches to code completion generate suggestions by using a language model to predict what the user might type next (the completion) from the context of what they are working on at the moment (the prompt) [2].”
From Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion (2022) · cites this paper as [2]
The Methods section (p. 5) says the authors feed a prompt to a pretrained language model for completion and generate code samples. However, the paper studies synthesis from problem descriptions and examples; it does not establish the cited sentence’s more specific account of predicting what a user would type next from their current editing context. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSimilar studies in the code space are limited to the number of few-shot examples in the prompt, and the effect of length of prompt on performance.
“Similar studies in the code space are limited to the number of few-shot examples in the prompt, and the effect of length of prompt on performance [9,15].”
From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Section 4.2 (p. 7) examines performance by the number of prompting examples, and Section 4.3 (p. 8) discusses how long prompts can hurt synthesis performance. But the study is not limited to those questions: the Introduction (p. 3) also lists model size, example selection, and sampling technique among the factors analyzed. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting works have used the Computational Accuracy metric to evaluate generative code models, but not other metrics regarding characteristics of generated artifacts and run-time efficiency.
“For example, for the Performance category, existing works have used the Computational Accuracy metric to evaluate generative code models [9,15,33,88], but not other metrics we uncovered regarding the characteristics of the generated artifacts and run-time efficiency.”
From Investigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Section 3 (p. 5) says the paper evaluates generated code by executing it against tests for functional correctness, supporting the computational-accuracy part. But Section 4.7 (p. 10) also calculates BLEU scores comparing generated samples with reference programs, so the claim that it uses no other metric concerning generated artifacts is too broad. The cited passages do not show an evaluation metric for run-time efficiency. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text or synthesizing computer programs.
“Large pre-trained language models perform remarkably well on tasks that can be done 'in one pass', such as generating realistic text (Brown et al., 2020) or synthesizing computer programs (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
The Conclusion (p. 23) says large language models perform surprisingly well at synthesizing short Python programs. But it qualifies that result: good performance depends on generating many samples and checking them for correctness, so it does not establish the claimed strong performance 'in one pass.' The citation to Austin et al. is attached to program synthesis, not realistic-text generation. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge pre-trained language models struggle with tasks that require unbounded multi-step computation, such as adding integers or executing programs.
“However, they struggle with tasks that require unbounded multi-step computation, such as adding integers (Brown et al., 2020) or executing programs (Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Section 6.1 (p. 16) reports poor performance when models predicted the outputs of programs, and the Conclusion (p. 23) says results were poor with few-shot prompting or fine-tuning. This supports the citation’s point about executing programs, but the paper tests short programs and does not establish a limitation specifically for unbounded multi-step computation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 'MBPP-aug + CodeNet + single line' model achieved an overall synthesis accuracy of 54%, compared to the 62% accuracy of the original few-shot model in Austin et al. (2021).
“The 'MBPP-aug + CodeNet + single line' model achieved an overall synthesis accuracy of 54%, compared to the 62% accuracy of the original few-shot model in Austin et al. (2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Austin et al. (2021)
The Introduction (p. 3) reports few-shot MBPP synthesis results for Austin et al.’s model, but gives 59.6% for the largest model, not 62%. It separately reports 63% on a subset of 100 original problems. The cited paper therefore supports the comparison to an original few-shot model, but not the stated 62% accuracy; the 54% result is not attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMBPP is a large, commonly used benchmark of Python problems.
“MBPP is another large, commonly used benchmark of Python problems.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
The Introduction (p. 2) identifies MBPP as a benchmark containing 974 short Python programming tasks, supporting its description as a large benchmark of Python problems. The Datasets section (p. 4) calls it an entirely new dataset; our copy does not establish that it was commonly used. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCurrent benchmarks for evaluating neural code models focus on only a small subset of programming languages, excluding many popular languages such as Go or Rust.
“Current benchmarks for evaluating neural code models focus on only a small subset of programming languages, excluding many popular languages such as Go or Rust.”
From Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution (2023) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
The Abstract (p. 1) says this paper’s two benchmarks evaluate synthesis of Python programs, and Section 8.3 (pp. 21–22) discusses other benchmark types. That supports a narrower point about language coverage, but the paper does not establish that current benchmarks generally cover only a small subset of languages or specifically exclude Go and Rust. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHumanEval and other benchmarks only consist of programming problems in a single language.
“HumanEval [7]-developed by OpenAI for evaluating Codex-and other benchmarks [2,13,20] only consist of programming problems in a single language”
From CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
The Introduction (p. 2) says this paper introduces two Python code-synthesis datasets, and §2.1 (p. 4) describes MBPP as containing Python programs. That supports the single-language claim for this paper’s benchmarks. The Introduction (p. 3) mentions HumanEval but does not establish that it, or every other benchmark in the citing sentence, contains problems in only one language. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent large language models have demonstrated strong capabilities in understanding and generating code, achieving strong performance in tasks ranging from competitive programming to repository-level software engineering.
“Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in understanding and generating code, from competitive programming to repository-level software engineering.”
From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
The Abstract (p. 1) reports strong results for generating short Python programs. But the Introduction (p. 3) says performance on programming-competition benchmarks has generally been poor, and the Conclusion (p. 23) cautions against inferring that the models understand program semantics. The paper does not demonstrate performance on repository-level software engineering tasks. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting techniques for code generation evaluate on predefined prompt templates with little to no modifications.
“In fact, existing techniques evaluate on predefined prompt templates with little to no modifications (Austin et al., 2021;Liu et al., 2024b).”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Section 3 (p. 5) describes evaluating code synthesis with a specified few-shot prompt format. But Sections 4.2–4.3 (pp. 7–8) report varying the number of test assertions and the choice of prompt examples, so the claim that prompts received little to no modification overstates this paper's methods. The paper also does not establish that this is how existing techniques generally evaluate. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe development of evaluations in tandem with language models has substantially contributed to the rapid advancement of these models.
“The development of evaluations in tandem with language models (LMs) has substantially contributed to the rapid advancement of these models [29, 11, 7, 25, 81, 27, 72].”
From SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientists (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
The Abstract (p. 1) says the authors developed two new benchmarks to evaluate language models for program synthesis, supporting the claim that evaluations were developed alongside work on these models. It does not say that developing evaluations substantially contributed to the models’ rapid advancement; the reported performance improvements are associated with model size and fine-tuning, not benchmark development. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHumanEval, MBPP, and APPS score function-level synthesis.
“HumanEval [5], MBPP [3], and APPS [13] score function-level synthesis; CrossCodeEval [11] targets cross-file completion; CodeClash [33] and PinchBench [18] probe further axes of coding capability.”
From Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
Researchers have already investigated the benefits of natural language feedback to guide program synthesis.
“Researchers have already investigated the benefits of natural language feedback to guide program synthesis [2]”
From Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion (2022) · cites this paper as [2]
Researchers have already investigated the benefits of natural-language feedback to guide program synthesis.
“Researchers have already investigated the benefits of natural-language feedback to guide program synthesis, 2 so the conversational framing of coding completions is not a radical proposal.”
From Measuring GitHub Copilot's Impact on Productivity (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Direct execution prediction has been shown to perform poorly on Python programs.
“Direct execution prediction has been shown to perform poorly on Python programs in Austin et al. (2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Large-scale language models struggle to predict the result of executing Python code, even code which is a solution to a programming task the model is able to solve.
“Similarly, large-scale language models struggle to predict the result of executing Python code, even code which is a solution to a programming task the model is able to solve (Austin et al., 2021).”
From Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models (2021) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Previous work has found that textual similarity metrics correlate only weakly with code correctness.
“However, previous work has found that textual similarity metrics correlate only weakly with code correctness [1,2,27], highlighting the importance of benchmark suites with unit tests.”
From MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
MBPP contains 974 problems in Python.
“MBPP dataset is proposed by [2], containing 974 problems in Python.”
From CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
Different from prior works on utilizing human feedback for code repair, where the feedback message explains the code errors and how to fix them, SELF-DEBUGGING teaches the model to identify implementation errors by investigating execution results and explaining the code by itself.
“Different from prior works on utilizing human feedback for code repair, where the feedback message explains the code errors and how to fix them (Chen et al., 2023a;Austin et al., 2021), SELF-DEBUGGING teaches the model to identify the implementation errors via investigating into execution results and explaining the code by itself.”
From Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug (2023) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
MBPP prompts have a templated structure whose critical task specification appears mid-prompt, making them maximally vulnerable to truncation-based compression.
“MBPP prompts follow a templated structure where the critical task specification appears mid-prompt:”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
MBPP provides 974 crowd-sourced programming problems intended to be solvable by entry-level programmers.
“The Mostly Basic Python Problems (MBPP) benchmark (Austin et al., 2021) takes a complementary approach, providing 974 crowd-sourced programming problems intended to be solvable by entry-level programmers.”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
HumanEval and MBPP evaluate isolated functions.
“HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) and MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) evaluate isolated functions.”
From SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
MBPP comprises 974 programming problems created by crowdsource contributors.
“MBPP, on the other hand, comprises 974 programming problems created by crowdsource contributors.”
From Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report (2024) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
MBPP-verified contains 78 programs from the original MBPP dataset.
“In particular, MBPP -verified is sourced from (Yang et al., 2024;Misu et al., 2024) and contains 78 programs from the original MBPP dataset (Austin et al., 2021).”
From AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement (2024) · cites this paper as Austin et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The models we use in this paper are dense left-to-right decoder-only Transformer language models [Vaswani et al., 2017] trained on a combination of web documents, dialog data, and Wikipedia.”
MethodBERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · cited 1× · see citing works
“P L ] 1 6 A ug 2 text [Brown et al., 2020, Raffel et al., 2019] and to solve a rapidly expanding set of modeling and reasoning tasks [Devlin et al., 2019, big-bench collaboration, 2021].”
BackgroundLanguage Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · see citing works
Deep Contextualized Word Representations
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 · Cited by 11,983 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…line of previous work on neural language models of natural language text [Mikolov et al., 2010, Sutskever et al., 2011, Józefowicz et al., 2016, Dai and Le, 2015, Peters et al., 2018, Howard and Ruder, 2018], especially recent large Transformer models [Radford et al., 2018, Brown et al., 2020].”
BackgroundOn the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · see citing works
Recurrent neural network based language model
Mikolov, T., Karafiát, M., Burget, L., Černocký, J., & Khudanpur, S. (2010) · Interspeech 2010 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2010-343 · Cited by 5,390 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Our work is inspired by the long line of previous work on neural language models of natural language text [Mikolov et al., 2010, Sutskever et al., 2011, Józefowicz et al., 2016, Dai and Le, 2015, Peters et al., 2018, Howard and Ruder, 2018], especially recent large Transformer models [Radford et…”
MethodKudo, T., & Richardson, J. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-2012 · Cited by 4,454 · cited 1× · see citing works
“81T BPE tokens with a vocabulary of 32K tokens using the SentencePiece library [Kudo and Richardson, 2018].”
MethodUniversal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification
Howard, J., & Ruder, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1031 · Cited by 4,100 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…line of previous work on neural language models of natural language text [Mikolov et al., 2010, Sutskever et al., 2011, Józefowicz et al., 2016, Dai and Le, 2015, Peters et al., 2018, Howard and Ruder, 2018], especially recent large Transformer models [Radford et al., 2018, Brown et al., 2020].”
BackgroundThe Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243 · Cited by 3,096 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These results suggest that methods such as prompt-tuning [Li and Liang, 2021, Lester et al., 2021] could yield substantial performance improvements in this domain.”
ResultThe Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08691 · Cited by 3,092 · cited 1×
“These results suggest that methods such as prompt-tuning [Li and Liang, 2021, Lester et al., 2021] could yield substantial performance improvements in this domain.”
ResultCodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages
Feng, Z., Guo, D., Tang, D., Duan, N., Feng, X., Gong, M., Shou, L., Qin, B., Liu, T., Jiang, D., et al. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.139 · Cited by 2,824 · see citing works
Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 · Cited by 2,473 · see citing works
On the synthesis of a reactive module
Pnueli, A., & Rosner, R. (1989) · ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) · doi:10.1145/75277.75293 · Cited by 1,452 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Program synthesis is a longstanding goal of artificial intelligence research [Manna and Waldinger, 1971, Waldinger et al., 1969, Summers, 1977, Shaw et al., 1975, Pnueli and Rosner, 1989, Manna and Waldinger, 1975], dating as far back as the 1940s and 50s [Copeland, 2012, Backus et al., 1957].”
BackgroundHybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory
Graves, A., Wayne, G., Reynolds, M., Harley, T., Danihelka, I., Grabska-Barwińska, A., Colmenarejo, S. G., Grefenstette, E., Ramalho, T., Agapiou, J., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature20101 · Cited by 1,412 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…are deep network architectures that aim to learn algorithms from input-output examples, by structuring the network in a way that corresponds to mathematical models of computation like Turing machines [Graves et al., 2014, Kaiser and Sutskever, 2016, Kurach et al., 2016, Graves et al., 2016].”
Generating Text with Recurrent Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Martens, J., & Hinton, G. E. (2011) · Cited by 1,266 · see citing works
code2vec: learning distributed representations of code
Alon, U., Zilberstein, M., Levy, O., & Yahav, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3290353 · Cited by 1,235 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…models for code have shown to be effective for transfer learning across software engineering tasks, including CuBERT [Kanade et al., 2020], CodeBERT [Feng et al., 2020], PyMT5 [Clement et al., 2020], code2vec [Alon et al., 2019], and other T5 models trained on code [Mastropaolo et al., 2021].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialExploring the Limits of Language ModelingPreprint
Józefowicz, R., Vinyals, O., Schuster, M., Shazeer, N., & Wu, Y.-H. (2016) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1602.02410 · Cited by 1,202 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…work is inspired by the long line of previous work on neural language models of natural language text [Mikolov et al., 2010, Sutskever et al., 2011, Józefowicz et al., 2016, Dai and Le, 2015, Peters et al., 2018, Howard and Ruder, 2018], especially recent large Transformer models [Radford et al.,…”
BackgroundGenProg: A Generic Method for Automatic Software Repair
Goues, C. L., Nguyen, T. H., Forrest, S., & Weimer, W. R. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.104 · Cited by 1,084 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Program repair is the problem of automatically fixing bugs in programs, often based on a test suite [Le Goues et al., 2012, Long and Rinard, 2016].”
Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data
Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 · Cited by 1,082 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…criticism of language models like the ones we use in this paper is that they learn statistical correlations between tokens without an underlying world-model or mechanism for systematic reasoning, and therefore do not understand the meaning of what they are describing [Bender and Koller, 2020].”
MethodAutomating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples
Gulwani, S. (2011) · ACM-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/1926385.1926423 · Cited by 1,039 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2020], but these techniques have largely been applied to restricted domain-specific languages (DSLs) [Gulwani, 2011] or to languages that are more fully featured but that nevertheless are designed specifically with synthesis in mind [Odena and Sutton, 2020].”
MethodSemi-supervised Sequence Learning
Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.01432 · Cited by 994 · see citing works
Self-citationMathQA: Towards Interpretable Math Word Problem Solving with Operation-Based Formalisms
Amini, A., Gabriel, S., Lin, S., Koncel-Kedziorski, R., Choi, Y., & Hajishirzi, H. (2019) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1245 · Cited by 956 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The second is derived from the MathQA dataset [Amini et al., 2019] but casts the problem solutions as short Python programs.”
MethodInfluentialLearning to Represent Programs with GraphsPreprint
Allamanis, M., Brockschmidt, M., & Khademi, M. (2017) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.00740 · Cited by 947 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Many learning methods have been proposed for program repair [Allamanis et al., 2018b, Tarlow et al., 2019, Hellendoorn et al., 2019, Dinella et al., 2019, Yasunaga and Liang, 2020, Chen et al., 2019b, Pradel and Sen, 2018].”
MethodCombinatorial sketching for finite programs
Solar-Lezama, A., Tancau, L., Bodík, R., Seshia, S., & Saraswat, V. (2006) · ASPLOS XII · doi:10.1145/1168857.1168907 · Cited by 922 · see citing works
Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models
Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07805 · Cited by 727 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…it is now increasingly understood that large language models can learn undesirable (e.g. biased) behavior from unlabeled training data, e.g., Bender and Koller [2020] and Bender et al. [2021], or can reveal training data, as well as sensitive information in the training data [Carlini et al., 2020].”
BackgroundAlur, R., Bodik, R., Juniwal, G., Martin, M. M. K., Raghothaman, M., Seshia, S. A., Singh, R., Solar-Lezama, A., Torlak, E., & Udupa, A. (2013) · 2013 Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design · doi:10.1109/fmcad.2013.6679385 · Cited by 656 · see citing works
DeepCoder: Learning to Write ProgramsPreprint
Balog, M., Gaunt, A. L., Brockschmidt, M., Nowozin, S., & Tarlow, D. (2016) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01989 · Cited by 641 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There has been a recent resurgence of interest in techniques (both symbolic and ‘neuro-symbolic’) for synthesizing programs [Balog et al., 2017, Devlin et al., 2017, Ellis et al., 2018, 2020, Odena et al., 2020], but these techniques have largely been applied to restricted domain-specific languages…”
MethodA Syntactic Neural Model for General-Purpose Code Generation
Yin, P., & Neubig, G. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1041 · Cited by 623 · see citing works
SequenceR: Sequence-to-Sequence Learning for End-to-End Program Repair
Chen, Z.-M., Kommrusch, S., Tufano, M., Pouchet, L., Poshyvanyk, D., & Martin, M. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2940179 · Cited by 585 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Many learning methods have been proposed for program repair [Allamanis et al., 2018b, Tarlow et al., 2019, Hellendoorn et al., 2019, Dinella et al., 2019, Yasunaga and Liang, 2020, Chen et al., 2019b, Pradel and Sen, 2018].”
MethodAutomating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples
Gulwani, S. (2011) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/1925844.1926423 · Cited by 581 · see citing works
On the naturalness of software
Hindle, A., Barr, E. T., Su, Z., Gabel, M., & Dévanbu, P. (2012) · doi:10.5555/2337223.2337322 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Code completion with statistical language models
Raychev, V., Vechev, M., & Yahav, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/2594291.2594321 · Cited by 555 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Early work applied statistical n-gram models [Hindle et al., 2012, Allamanis and Sutton, 2013a] and neural networks [Maddison and Tarlow, 2014, Raychev et al., 2014] to code.”
MethodCodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generation
Lu, S., Guo, D., Ren, S., Huang, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., Blanco, A., Clement, C., Drain, D., Jiang, D., Tang, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.04664 · Cited by 536 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Multi-task benchmarks for these tasks have been collected into CodeXGlue [Lu et al., 2021].”
MethodAutomatic patch generation by learning correct code
Long, F., & Rinard, M. (2016) · ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) · doi:10.1145/2837614.2837617 · Cited by 493 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Program repair is the problem of automatically fixing bugs in programs, often based on a test suite [Le Goues et al., 2012, Long and Rinard, 2016].”
IntelliCode compose: code generation using transformer
Svyatkovskiy, A., Deng, S. K., Fu, S., & Sundaresan, N. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3368089.3417058 · Cited by 474 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Code completion has been a particular focus of interest [Raychev et al., 2016, Karampatsis et al., 2020, Svyatkovskiy et al., 2020, Kim et al., 2020].”
BackgroundA Convolutional Attention Network for Extreme Summarization of Source CodePreprint
Allamanis, M., Peng, H. M., & Sutton, C. A. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1602.03001 · Cited by 436 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2019], predicting readable names to describe functions [Allamanis et al., 2016], and generating function text from docstrings [Iyer et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationMining source code repositories at massive scale using language modeling
Allamanis, M., & Sutton, C. (2013) · IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1109/msr.2013.6624029 · Cited by 393 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Early work applied statistical n-gram models [Hindle et al., 2012, Allamanis and Sutton, 2013a] and neural networks [Maddison and Tarlow, 2014, Raychev et al., 2014] to code.”
MethodSelf-citationLearning natural coding conventions
Allamanis, M., Barr, E. T., Bird, C., & Sutton, C. A. (2014) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635883 · Cited by 380 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Methods aim improving code readability by asking a model trained on a code corpus with good style to predict names of variables and methods in new code [Raychev et al., 2015, Allamanis et al., 2014, Alon et al., 2019].”
MethodSelf-citationDeepBugs: a learning approach to name-based bug detection
Pradel, M., & Sen, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3276517 · Cited by 352 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Many learning methods have been proposed for program repair [Allamanis et al., 2018b, Tarlow et al., 2019, Hellendoorn et al., 2019, Dinella et al., 2019, Yasunaga and Liang, 2020, Chen et al., 2019b, Pradel and Sen, 2018].”
MethodTowards a Big Data Curated Benchmark of Inter-project Code Clones
Svajlenko, J., Islam, J. F., Keivanloo, I., Roy, C. K., & Mia, M. M. (2014) · 2014 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution · doi:10.1109/icsme.2014.77 · Cited by 339 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…have been proposed for software engineering tasks including code completion [Raychev et al., 2016, Allamanis and Sutton, 2013b], clone detection [Svajlenko et al., 2014], code search [Husain et al., 2019], predicting readable names to describe functions [Allamanis et al., 2016], and generating…”
BackgroundMethodGPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with Mesh-Tensorflow
Black, S., Leo, G., Wang, P., Leahy, C., & Biderman, S. (2021) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5297715 · Cited by 324 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Hendrycks et al. [2021] evaluate large language models on this data, specifically finetuned GPT-2 [Radford et al., 2019] and GPT-Neo [Black et al., 2021], as well as few-shot prediction with GPT-3 [Brown et al., 2020].”
BackgroundLearning to ExecutePreprint
Zaremba, W., & Sutskever, I. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.4615 · Cited by 314 · cited 2× · see citing works
“We suspect that training on more detailed execution data [Zaremba and Sutskever, 2014, Bieber et al., 2020] may further improve performance.”
BackgroundMethodPredicting Program Properties from "Big Code"
Raychev, V., Vechev, M., & Krause, A. (2014) · ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) · doi:10.1145/2676726.2677009 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Latent Predictor Networks for Code Generation
Ling, W., Blunsom, P., Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Wang, F., & Senior, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1057 · Cited by 307 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Also, several different methods have been proposed for the problem of mapping a natural language description to code in general-purpose languages like Python [Ling et al., 2016, Yin and Neubig, 2017, Iyer et al., 2018].”
MethodPrefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.00190 · Cited by 289 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These results suggest that methods such as prompt-tuning [Li and Liang, 2021, Lester et al., 2021] could yield substantial performance improvements in this domain.”
ResultToward automatic program synthesis
Manna, Z., & Waldinger, R. J. (1971) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/362566.362568 · Cited by 285 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Program synthesis is a longstanding goal of artificial intelligence research [Manna and Waldinger, 1971, Waldinger et al., 1969, Summers, 1977, Shaw et al., 1975, Pnueli and Rosner, 1989, Manna and Waldinger, 1975], dating as far back as the 1940s and 50s [Copeland, 2012, Backus et al., 1957].”
BackgroundStudying the Usage of Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer to Support Code-Related Tasks
Mastropaolo, A., Scalabrino, S., Cooper, N., Palacio, D. N., Poshyvanyk, D., Oliveto, R., & Bavota, G. (2021) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00041 · Cited by 271 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…models for code have shown to be effective for transfer learning across software engineering tasks, including CuBERT [Kanade et al., 2020], CodeBERT [Feng et al., 2020], PyMT5 [Clement et al., 2020], code2vec [Alon et al., 2019], and other T5 models trained on code [Mastropaolo et al., 2021].”
MethodLearning and Evaluating Contextual Embedding of Source CodePreprint
Kanade, A., Maniatis, P., Balakrishnan, G., & Shi, K. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.00059 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Hellendoorn, V. J., Bird, C., Barr, E. T., & Allamanis, M. (2018) · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE · doi:10.1145/3236024.3236051 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Neural GPUs Learn AlgorithmsPreprint
Kaiser, Ł., & Sutskever, I. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.08228 · Cited by 224 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…are deep network architectures that aim to learn algorithms from input-output examples, by structuring the network in a way that corresponds to mathematical models of computation like Turing machines [Graves et al., 2014, Kaiser and Sutskever, 2016, Kurach et al., 2016, Graves et al., 2016].”
A Methodology for LISP Program Construction from Examples
Summers, P. D. (1977) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/321992.322002 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Code Prediction by Feeding Trees to Transformers
Kim, S., Zhao, J., Tian, Y., & Chandra, S. (2021) · 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00026 · Cited by 209 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Code completion has been a particular focus of interest [Raychev et al., 2016, Karampatsis et al., 2020, Svyatkovskiy et al., 2020, Kim et al., 2020].”
BackgroundThe FORTRAN automatic coding system
Backus, J., Stern, H., Ziller, I., Hughes, R. A., Nutt, R., Beeber, R. J., Best, S., Goldberg, R., Haibt, L. M., Herrick, H. L., et al. (1957) · Western Joint IRE-AIEE-ACM Computer Conference (WJCC) · doi:10.1145/1455567.1455599 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Growing solver-aided languages with rosette
Torlak, E., & Bodík, R. (2013) · doi:10.1145/2509578.2509586 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Big code != big vocabulary: open-vocabulary models for source code
Karampatsis, R.-M., Babii, H., Robbes, R., Sutton, C., & Janes, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3377811.3380342 · Cited by 182 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Code completion has been a particular focus of interest [Raychev et al., 2016, Karampatsis et al., 2020, Svyatkovskiy et al., 2020, Kim et al., 2020].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMapping Language to Code in Programmatic Context
Iyer, S., Konstas, I., Cheung, A., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1192 · Cited by 180 · cited 3× · see citing works
“, 2016], and generating function text from docstrings [Iyer et al., 2018].”
Polozov, O., Gulwani, S., & Singh, R. K. (2017) · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Traduction Non Supervisée de Langages de Programmation
Rozière, B. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Probabilistic model for code with decision trees
Raychev, V., Bielik, P., & Vechev, M. (2016) · Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications · doi:10.1145/2983990.2984041 · Cited by 157 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Code completion has been a particular focus of interest [Raychev et al., 2016, Karampatsis et al., 2020, Svyatkovskiy et al., 2020, Kim et al., 2020].”
BackgroundMethodMeasuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS
Hendrycks, D., Basart, S., Kadavath, S., Mazeika, M., Arora, A., Guo, E., Burns, C., Puranik, S., He, H., Song, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.09938 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
CodeSearchNet Challenge: Evaluating the State of Semantic Code Search
Husain, H., Wang, H.-H., Gazit, T., Allamanis, M., & Brockschmidt, M. (2019) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7908467 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
TypeWriter: neural type prediction with search-based validation
Pradel, M., Gousios, G., Liu, J., & Chandra, S. (2019) · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE · doi:10.1145/3368089.3409715 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Lexical statistical machine translation for language migration
Nguyen, A. T., Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, T. N. (2013) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/2491411.2494584 · Cited by 136 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Porting programs across languages has been treated as a learning problem similar to machine translation [Roziere et al., 2020, Nguyen et al., 2013, Karaivanov et al., 2014].”
MethodStructured Generative Models of Natural Source CodePreprint
Maddison, C. J., & Tarlow, D. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1401.0514 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Global Relational Models of Source Code
Hellendoorn, V. J., Sutton, C. A., Singh, R., & Maniatis, P. (2020) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationRobustFill: Neural Program Learning under Noisy I/OPreprint
Devlin, J., Uesato, J., Bhupatiraju, S., Singh, R., Mohamed, A., & Kohli, P. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.07469 · Cited by 127 · cited 3× · see citing works
“There has been a recent resurgence of interest in techniques (both symbolic and ‘neuro-symbolic’) for synthesizing programs [Balog et al., 2017, Devlin et al., 2017, Ellis et al., 2018, 2020, Odena et al., 2020], but these techniques have largely been applied to restricted domain-specific languages…”
BackgroundMethodDreamCoder: growing generalizable, interpretable knowledge with wake–sleep Bayesian program learning
Ellis, K., Wong, L., Nye, M., Sablé-Meyer, M., Cary, L., Anaya Pozo, L., Hewitt, L., Solar-Lezama, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2023) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2022.0050 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Self-citationPyMT5: multi-mode translation of natural language and Python code with transformers
Clement, C. B., Drain, D., Timcheck, J., Svyatkovskiy, A., & Sundaresan, N. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.728 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
LambdaNet: Probabilistic Type Inference using Graph Neural NetworksPreprint
Wei, J., Goyal, M., Durrett, G., & Dillig, I. (2020) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.02161 · Cited by 120 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several methods have been proposed to do machine learning for type inference, for example, to add types to untyped code, such as when converting Javascript to Typescript [Hellendoorn et al., 2018, Pandi et al., 2020, Pradel et al., 2020, Wei et al., 2020].”
MethodPhrase-Based Statistical Translation of Programming Languages
Karaivanov, S., Raychev, V., & Vechev, M. (2014) · ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (Onward!) · doi:10.1145/2661136.2661148 · Cited by 115 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Porting programs across languages has been treated as a learning problem similar to machine translation [Roziere et al., 2020, Nguyen et al., 2013, Karaivanov et al., 2014].”
MethodHOPPITY: LEARNING GRAPH TRANSFORMATIONS TO DETECT AND FIX BUGS IN PROGRAMS
Dinella, E., Dai, H., Li, Z., Naik, M., Song, L., & Wang, K. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14128508 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Knowledge and reasoning in program synthesis
Manna, Z., & Waldinger, R. J. (1975) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(75)90008-9 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code
Kulal, S., Pasupat, P., Chandra, K., Lee, M., Padon, O., Aiken, A., & Liang, P. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04908 · Cited by 103 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Such datasets include the Natural Program Synthesis (NAPS) dataset [Zavershynskyi et al., 2018], the Search-based Pseudocode to Code (SPoC) dataset [Kulal et al., 2019], the APPS dataset [Hendrycks et al., 2021], the PROGRES dataset [Alet et al., 2021], and the CodeNet dataset [Puri et al., 2021].”
MethodImplicit Representations of Meaning in Neural Language Models
Li, B. Z., Nye, M., & Andreas, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.143 · Cited by 84 · cited 1× · see citing works
“On the other hand, recent work has provided evidence that, in some natural language contexts, pre-trained Transformers are able to implicitly construct approximate representations of the semantics of the worlds they describe in text [Li et al., 2021].”
BackgroundSelf-citationYou Autocomplete Me: Poisoning Vulnerabilities in Neural Code CompletionPreprint
Schuster, R., Song, C., Tromer, E., & Shmatikov, V. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.02220 · Cited by 83 · cited 2× · see citing works
“[2021] provide a detailed overview of risks and potential harms of large language models over code, discussing potential concerns that include over-reliance on generated outputs, misalignment, poisoning attacks [Schuster et al., 2020], and others.”
BackgroundLatent Predictor Networks for Code GenerationPreprint
Ling, W., Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Senior, A., Wang, F., & Blunsom, P. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.06744 · Cited by 82 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Also, several different methods have been proposed for the problem of mapping a natural language description to code in general-purpose languages like Python [Ling et al., 2016, Yin and Neubig, 2017, Iyer et al., 2018].”
MethodGraph-based, Self-Supervised Program Repair from Diagnostic Feedback
Yasunaga, M., & Liang, P. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.10636 · Cited by 81 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Many learning methods have been proposed for program repair [Allamanis et al., 2018b, Tarlow et al., 2019, Hellendoorn et al., 2019, Dinella et al., 2019, Yasunaga and Liang, 2020, Chen et al., 2019b, Pradel and Sen, 2018].”
MethodNeural Sketch Learning for Conditional Program GenerationPreprint
Murali, V., Qi, L., Chaudhuri, S., & Jermaine, C. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.05698 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Inferring LISP Programs from Examples
Shaw, D. E., Swartout, W., & Green, C. C. (1975) · Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University) · doi:10.7916/d89k4k6x · Cited by 66 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Program synthesis is a longstanding goal of artificial intelligence research [Manna and Waldinger, 1971, Waldinger et al., 1969, Summers, 1977, Shaw et al., 1975, Pnueli and Rosner, 1989, Manna and Waldinger, 1975], dating as far back as the 1940s and 50s [Copeland, 2012, Backus et al., 1957].”
BackgroundWrite, Execute, Assess: Program Synthesis with a REPL
Ellis, K., Nye, M., Pu, Y., Sosa, F., Tenenbaum, J., & Solar-Lezama, A. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.04604 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning to Fix Build Errors with Graph2Diff Neural Networks
Tarlow, D., Moitra, S., Rice, A. C., Chen, Z., Manzagol, P.-A., Sutton, C. A., & Aftandilian, E. E. (2020) · International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3387940.3392181 · Cited by 55 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Many learning methods have been proposed for program repair [Allamanis et al., 2018b, Tarlow et al., 2019, Hellendoorn et al., 2019, Dinella et al., 2019, Yasunaga and Liang, 2020, Chen et al., 2019b, Pradel and Sen, 2018].”
MethodSelf-citationExecution-Guided Neural Program Synthesis.
Chen, X., Liu, C., & Song, D. X. (2018) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Learning Libraries of Subroutines for Neurally–Guided Bayesian Program Induction
Ellis, K., Morales, L., Sablé-Meyer, M., Solar-Lezama, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2018) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 44 · see citing works
(2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Automatic Program Synthesis of Long Programs with a Learned Garbage CollectorPreprint
Zohar, A., & Wolf, L. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.04682 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
GenLine and GenForm: Two Tools for Interacting with Generative Language Models in a Code Editor
Jiang, E., Toh, E., Molina, A., Donsbach, A., Cai, C. J., & Terry, M. (2021) · Adjunct Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3474349.3480209 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationBUSTLE: Bottom-Up Program Synthesis Through Learning-Guided ExplorationPreprint
Odena, A., Shi, K., Bieber, D., Singh, R., Sutton, C. A., & Dai, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.14381 · Cited by 22 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…in techniques (both symbolic and ‘neuro-symbolic’) for synthesizing programs [Balog et al., 2017, Devlin et al., 2017, Ellis et al., 2018, 2020, Odena et al., 2020], but these techniques have largely been applied to restricted domain-specific languages (DSLs) [Gulwani, 2011] or to languages…”
MethodSelf-citationLearning to Represent Programs with Property SignaturesPreprint
Odena, A., & Sutton, C. A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.09030 · Cited by 18 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2020], but these techniques have largely been applied to restricted domain-specific languages (DSLs) [Gulwani, 2011] or to languages that are more fully featured but that nevertheless are designed specifically with synthesis in mind [Odena and Sutton, 2020].”
MethodSelf-citationOptTyper: Probabilistic Type Inference by Optimising Logical and Natural ConstraintsPreprint
Pandi, I. V., Barr, E. T., Gordon, A. D., & Sutton, C. A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.00348 · Cited by 16 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several methods have been proposed to do machine learning for type inference, for example, to add types to untyped code, such as when converting Javascript to Typescript [Hellendoorn et al., 2018, Pandi et al., 2020, Pradel et al., 2020, Wei et al., 2020].”
MethodSelf-citationNeural Random-Access MachinesPreprint
Kurach, K., Andrychowicz, M., & Sutskever, I. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.06392 · Cited by 14 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…are deep network architectures that aim to learn algorithms from input-output examples, by structuring the network in a way that corresponds to mathematical models of computation like Turing machines [Graves et al., 2014, Kaiser and Sutskever, 2016, Kurach et al., 2016, Graves et al., 2016].”
A large-scale benchmark for few-shot program induction and synthesis
Alet, F., Lopez-Contreras, J., Koppel, J., Nye, M., Solar-Lezama, A., Lozano‐Pérez, T., Kaelbling, L. P., & Tenenbaum, J. (2021) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationWhere should I comment my code?
Louis, A. P., Dash, S. K., Barr, E. T., Ernst, M. D., & Sutton, C. A. (2020) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER) · doi:10.1145/3377816.3381736 · Cited by 5 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Models trained over natural language and code have been applied within tools for improving comment quality and relevance [Louis et al., 2020, Panthaplackel et al., 2021].”
MethodSelf-citationDeep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source Code
Panthaplackel, S., Li, J. J., Gligoric, M., & Mooney, R. J. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i1.16119 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [10]10. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yura Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Will Guss, Alex Nichol, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, Andrew Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating large language models trained on code, July 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · see citing works
“See Austin et al. (2021) for a similar experiment with the MathQA dataset (Amini et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · see citing works
“, 2020), as well as the use of large language models (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093 · see citing works
Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners
Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V. Y., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01652 · Cited by 1,101 · see citing works
Self-citationCode as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control
Liang, J., Huang, W., Xia, F., Xu, P., Hausman, K., Ichter, B., Florence, P., & Zeng, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160591 · Cited by 767 · see citing works
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
Vaithilingam, P., Zhang, T., & Glassman, E. L. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519665 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code
Rozière, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12950 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
“We start by reporting results for Python code generation using the HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), MBPP (Austin et al., 2021) and APPS (Hendrycks et al., 2021) benchmarks.”
MethodWu, T. S., Terry, M., & Cai, C. (2021) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517582 · Cited by 757 · see citing works
Self-citationMathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot’s Code Contributions
Pearce, H., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Karri, R. (2022) · 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833571 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
The Robots Are Here: Navigating the Generative AI Revolution in Computing Education
Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3623762.3633499 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
CodaMosa: Escaping Coverage Plateaus in Test Generation with Pre-trained Large Language Models
Lemieux, C., Inala, J. P., Lahiri, S. K., & Sen, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00085 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.03874 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Deng, Y., Xia, C. S., Peng, H., Yang, C., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3597926.3598067 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Recent advancements and challenges of NLP-based sentiment analysis: A state-of-the-art review
Jim, J. R., Talukder, M. A. R., Malakar, P., Kabir, M. M., Nur, K. M., & Mridha, M. F. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2024.100059 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
“Specifically, we challenge an agent to perform search-based question answering on HotPotQA [28], multi-step tasks in common household environments in AlfWorld [22], and code writing tasks in competition-like environments with interpreters and compilers in HumanEval [5], MBPP [2], and LeetcodeHard, a new benchmark.”
MethodCodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X
Zheng, Q., Xia, X., Zou, X., Dong, Y., Wang, S., Xue, Y., Shen, L., Wang, Z., Wang, A., Li, Y., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3580305.3599790 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672459 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
“MBPP (sanitized version) [Austin et al., 2021] contains 427 manually verified Python programming tasks, covering programming fundamentals, standard library functionality, and more.”
An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation
Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., & Wang, M. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3697010 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
“In this paper, we follow the common practice in LLM-based code generation assessment [4, 15].”
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Powell, G., Finnie-Ansley, J., & Santos, E. A. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3617367 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Xie, T., Wu, C. H., Shi, P., Zhong, R., Scholak, T., Yasunaga, M., Wu, C.-S., Zhong, M., Yin, P., Wang, S. I., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.39 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?
Perry, N., Srivastava, M., Kumar, D., & Boneh, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3576915.3623157 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Automated Repair of Programs from Large Language Models
Fan, Z., Gao, X., Mirchev, M., Roychoudhury, A., & Tan, S. H. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00128 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework
Hong, S., Zhuge, M., Chen, J., Zheng, X., Cheng, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00352 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
“In order to assess the performance of the MetaGPT framework in code generation, particularly in single-file scenarios, and demonstrate the effectiveness of its multi-agent collaboration, we conduct evaluations using two open-source benchmarks, HumanEval[24] and MBPP[25], to evaluate the code generation performance.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInvestigating Explainability of Generative AI for Code through Scenario-based Design
Sun, J., Liao, Q. V., Muller, M., Agarwal, M., Houde, S., Talamadupula, K., & Weisz, J. D. (2022) · 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511119 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models
Pearce, H. A., Tan, B., Ahmad, B., Karri, R., & Dolan-Gavitt, B. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179420 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models
Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Lovitt, L., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Conerly, T., Dassarma, N., Drain, D., Elhage, N., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533229 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Invited Paper: VerilogEval: Evaluating Large Language Models for Verilog Code Generation
Liu, M., Pinckney, N., Khailany, B., & Ren, H. M. (2023) · doi:10.1109/iccad57390.2023.10323812 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Generative AI in Higher Education: The ChatGPT Effect
Chan, C. K. Y., & Colloton, T. (2024) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9781003459026 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completion
Ziegler, A., Kalliamvakou, E., Li, X. A., Rice, A., Rifkin, D., Simister, S., Sittampalam, G., & Aftandilian, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Machine Programming · doi:10.1145/3520312.3534864 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesis
Fried, D., Aghajanyan, A., Lin, J., Wang, S., Wallace, E., Shi, F., Zhong, R., Yih, W.-T., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lewis, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.05999 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
“We compare model pass@1 scores on the HumanEval [18] and MBPP [10] left-to-right synthesis benchmarks, with results in Table 7.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRetrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot Learning
Nashid, N., Sintaha, M., & Mesbah, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00205 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing using Language Models
Gero, K. I., Liu, V., & Chilton, L. (2022) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3532106.3533533 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Refining ChatGPT-Generated Code: Characterizing and Mitigating Code Quality Issues
Liu, Y., Le-Cong, T., Widyasari, R., Tantithamthavorn, C., Li, L., Le, X.-B. D., & Lo, D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3643674 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Large Language Models for Code: Security Hardening and Adversarial Testing
He, J., & Vechev, M. (2023) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3576915.3623175 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Hanna, E. B., Bressand, F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.04088 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Zhang, K., Li, J., Li, G., Shi, X., & Jin, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.737 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Natural Language Generation and Understanding of Big Code for AI-Assisted Programming: A Review
Wong, M.-F., Guo, S., Hang, C. N., Ho, S., & Tan, C. W. (2023) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e25060888 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
(2023) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179324 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00093 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
“…decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022, inter alia ), marginalizing intermediate steps that share the same…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationApplications of natural language processing and large language models in materials discovery
Jiang, X., Wang, W., Tian, S., Wang, H., Lookman, T., & Su, Y. (2025) · npj Computational Materials · doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01554-0 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Asleep at the keyboard? Assessing the security of GitHub copilot’s code contributions
Pearce, H., Ahmad, B., Tan, B., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Karri, R. (2025) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3610721 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
“Although prior research has evaluated the functionality of code generated by language models [3], [2], there is no B. Dolan-Gavitt is supported in part by the National Science Foundation award #1801495.”
Measuring GitHub Copilot's Impact on Productivity
Ziegler, A., Kalliamvakou, E., Li, X. A., Rice, A., Rifkin, D., Simister, S., Sittampalam, G., & Aftandilian, E. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3633453 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Datasets for large language models: a comprehensive survey
Liu, Y., Cao, J., Liu, C., Ding, K., & Jin, L. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11403-7 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Survey
Zan, D.-G., Chen, B., Zhang, F., Lu, D., Wu, B., Guan, B., Wang, Y.-J., & Lou, J.-G. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.411 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Wei, Y., Xia, C. S., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616271 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09388 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
“• Coding Tasks : EvalPlus (Liu et al., 2023a) (0-shot) (Average of HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), MBPP (Austin et al., 2021), Humaneval+, MBPP+) (Liu et al., 2023a), MultiPL-E (Cassano et al., 2023) (0-shot) (Python, C++, JAVA, PHP, TypeScript, C#, Bash, JavaScript), MBPP-3shot (Austin et al., 2021), CRUX-O of CRUXEva…”
LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluation
Fakhoury, S., Naik, A., Sakkas, G., Chakraborty, S., & Lahiri, S. K. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3428972 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Ghafarollahi, A., & Buehler, M. J. (2024) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00013g · Cited by 122 · see citing works
MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Polyglot Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation
Cassano, F., Gouwar, J., Nguyen, D., Nguyen, S., Phipps-Costin, L., Pinckney, D., Yee, M.-H., Zi, Y., Anderson, C. J., Feldman, M. Q., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3267446 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Tool learning with large language models: a survey
Qu, C., Dai, S., Wei, X., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., Xu, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40678-2 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism
DeepSeek-AI, :, Bi, X., Chen, D., Chen, G., Chen, S., Dai, D., Deng, C., Ding, H., Dong, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02954 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
“For instance, ChatGLM3 achieves a score of 52.4 on MBPP, a code testset, which is close to DeepSeek 67B.”
InfluentialA Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
Laskar, M. T. R., Bari, M. S., Rahman, M., Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Joty, S., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.29 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Unsolved Problems in ML Safety
Hendrycks, D., Carlini, N., Schulman, J., & Steinhardt, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.13916 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Unified-IO 2: Scaling Autoregressive Multimodal Models with Vision, Language, Audio, and Action
Lu, J., Clark, C., Lee, S.-H., Zhang, Z., Khosla, S., Marten, R., Hoiem, D., & Kembhavi, A. (2024) · 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/cvpr52733.2024.02497 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Demystifying LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents
Xia, C. S., Deng, Y., Dunn, S., & Zhang, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3715754 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
CodeBERTScore: Evaluating Code Generation with Pretrained Models of Code
Zhou, S., Alon, U., Agarwal, S., & Neubig, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.859 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Leveraging Large Language Models to Power Chatbots for Collecting User Self-Reported Data
Wei, J., Kim, S., Jung, H., & Kim, Y.-H. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637364 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug
Chen, X., Lin, M., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.05128 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“Specifically, we evaluate on the MBPP test set (Austin et al., 2021), which contains 500 Python problems with text descriptions, where each problem has 3 unit tests.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialProSA: Assessing and Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs
Zhuo, J., Zhang, S., Fang, X., Duan, H., Lin, D., & Chen, K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12405 · Cited by 78
“These specific tasks include, but are not limited to, reading comprehension (Sakaguchi et al., 2021; Mostafazadeh et al., 2017), mathematical problem solving (Cobbe et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2021), and code generation (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
BackgroundPractices and Challenges of Using GitHub Copilot: An Empirical Study
Zhang, B., Liang, P., Zhou, X., Ahmad, A., & Waseem, M. (2023) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2023-077 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Liu, Y., Li, D., Wang, K., Xiong, Z., Shi, F., Wang, J., Li, B., & Hang, B. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103809 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Look Before You Leap: An Exploratory Study of Uncertainty Analysis for Large Language Models
Huang, Y., Song, J., Wang, Z., Zhao, S., Chen, H., Juefei-Xu, F., & Ma, L. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3519464 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Piccolo, S., Denny, P. C., Luxton-Reilly, A., Payne, S., & Ridge, P. G. (2023) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011511 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Large Language Models and Simple, Stupid Bugs
Jesse, K., Ahmed, T., Dévanbu, P., & Morgan, E. (2023) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr59073.2023.00082 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
A Survey of Deep Learning for Mathematical Reasoning
Lu, P., Qiu, L., Yu, W., Welleck, S., & Chang, K.-W. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.817 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Zhong, L., & Wang, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30185 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of Code Smells in Transformer-based Code Generation Techniques
Siddiq, M. L., Majumder, S. H., Mim, M. R., Jajodia, S., & Santos, J. C. S. (2022) · 2022 IEEE 22nd International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM) · doi:10.1109/scam55253.2022.00014 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Research directions for using LLM in software requirement engineering: a systematic review
Hemmat, A., Sharbaf, M., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S., Lano, K., & Tehrani, S. Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1519437 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Toward large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models
Xu, F., Hao, Q., Shao, C., Zong, Z., Li, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Lan, X., Gong, J., et al. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101370 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
LLMSecEval: A Dataset of Natural Language Prompts for Security Evaluations
Tony, C., Mutas, M., Ferreyra, N. E. D., & Scandariato, R. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr59073.2023.00084 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Hocky, G. M., & White, A. D. (2022) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d1dd00009h · Cited by 60 · see citing works
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 57 · see citing works
“We then demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method in various mathematical program synthesis tasks (Austin et al., 2021; Cobbe et al., 2021).”
MethodSWE-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 · see citing works
“, 2021) is the current standard in a longstanding pursuit of synthesizing code from natural language descriptions (Yu et al., 2018; Austin et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022a; Zan et al., 2023).”
BackgroundPrompt 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 101 · see citing works
Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyond
Lyu, M. R.-T., Ray, B., Roychoudhury, A., Tan, S. H., & Thongtanunam, P. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3708519 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
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 65 · see citing works
Don’t Generate, Discriminate: A Proposal for Grounding Language Models to Real-World Environments
Gu, Y., Deng, X. B., & Su, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.270 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
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 49 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“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).”
BackgroundExploring 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 · see citing works
“Tasks that have a reasoning component are especially well represented in this category — multi-hop reasoning [7], program execution [8], deductive reasoning [9] and theorem proving [10], to name a few.”
BackgroundClover: 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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 36 · see citing works
Shi, H. H., Fang, L., Chen, X., Gu, C., Ma, K., Zhang, X., Zhang, Z., Gu, J., & Lim, E. G. (2024) · IET Smart Grid · doi:10.1049/stg2.12191 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 51 · see citing works
Prompt Engineering Importance and Applicability with Generative AI
Bansal, P. (2024) · Journal of Computer and Communications · doi:10.4236/jcc.2024.1210002 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
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 38 · see citing works
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 40 · see citing works
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 38 · see citing works
Why concepts are (probably) vectors
Piantadosi, S. T., Muller, D. C. Y., Rule, J., Kaushik, K., Gorenstein, M. I., Leib, E. R., & Sanford, E. M. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.06.011 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Understanding HTML with Large Language Models
Gür, İ., Nachum, O., Miao, Y., Safdari, M., Huang, A., Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Fiedel, N., & Faust, A. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.185 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate RepresentationsPreprint
Paul, D., Ismayilzada, M., Peyrard, M., Borges, B., Bosselut, A., West, R., & Faltings, B. V. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01904 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Can Large Language Models be Anomaly Detectors for Time Series?
Alnegheimish, S., Nguyen, L., Berti‐Équille, L., & Veeramachaneni, K. K. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa61799.2024.10722786 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
TheoremQA: A Theorem-driven Question Answering Dataset
Chen, W., Yin, M., Ku, M., Lu, P., Wan, Y., Ma, X., Xu, J., Wang, X., & Xia, T. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.489 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Calibration and Correctness of Language Models for Code
Spiess, C., Gros, D., Pai, K., Pradel, M., Rabin, M. R. I., Alipour, A., Jha, S., Devanbu, P., & Ahmed, T. (2024) · International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00040 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Large Language Models are Not Models of Natural Language: They are Corpus Models
Veres, C. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3182505 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Phan, L., Gatti, A., Han, Z., & Li, N. (2025) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i1.13973 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., Jiang, E., Cai, C., Terry, M., Le, Q., & Sutton, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2108.07732
- OpenAlex
- W3195140297
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1 · 2014: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- TIB Data Manager
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62472339, 62302375)
- Hankyong National University
- Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China
- HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme (101070305)
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB/00319, 00319, UIDB/00319/2020, UIDB/05757/2020)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- program synthesis, large language models, Python code generation, MBPP, few-shot learning, fine-tuning, model size scaling, human feedback, error analysis, semantic grounding
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
