The DOI matches its DataCite record; 92 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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
“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]
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
“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]
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 [9]
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 [9]
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
“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
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, 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
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 '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)
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
“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]
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 Austin 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
“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]
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 [2]
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
“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
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 [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 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 [3]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
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 [2]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
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 Austin et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
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×
“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 54,325 · cited 1×
“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
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×
“…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
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×
“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×
“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×
“…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×
“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.”
Result
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
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
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 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
“, 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
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- 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
