The DOI matches its DataCite record; 76 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code
Open accessAbstract
We release Code Llama, a family of large language models for code based on Llama 2 providing state-of-the-art performance among open models, infilling capabilities, support for large input contexts, and zero-shot instruction following ability for programming tasks. We provide multiple flavors to cover a wide range of applications: foundation models (Code Llama), Python specializations (Code Llama - Python), and instruction-following models (Code Llama - Instruct) with 7B, 13B, 34B and 70B parameters each. All models are trained on sequences of 16k tokens and show improvements on inputs with up to 100k tokens. 7B, 13B and 70B Code Llama and Code Llama - Instruct variants support infilling based on surrounding content. Code Llama reaches state-of-the-art performance among open models on several code benchmarks, with scores of up to 67% and 65% on HumanEval and MBPP, respectively. Notably, Code Llama - Python 7B outperforms Llama 2 70B on HumanEval and MBPP, and all our models outperform every other publicly available model on MultiPL-E. We release Code Llama under a permissive license that allows for both research and commercial use.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Given a new task, current LLMs consume and learn from the task data 'as-is' via finetuning or in-context learning [9, 10, 11, 12].”
From Self-Adapting Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
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-based LLMs (e.g., CodeLlama(Roziere etal. 2023) and StarCoder(Li etal. 2023d; Lozhkov et al. 2024)) are particularly well suited to address this demand.”
From When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Roziere et al. 2023
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
“At the time of writing, only the CodeLlama models (Rozi` ere et al., 2023) are able to handle the very long contexts necessary.”
From SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues? (2023) · cites this paper as Rozière et al., 2023
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 Llama family are based upon Llama 2. It is pre-trained on a 500B token corpus with both code and natural language texts using the infilling objective.”
From Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code-Change-Related Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
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
“which is a 7B decoder-only model trained on code synthesis.”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
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
“LLMs have achieved remarkable proficiency at generating code in mainstream programming languages such as Python and JavaScript, yet this proficiency does not transfer to logic programming.”
From From Reasoning to Code: GRPO Optimization for Underrepresented Languages (2026) · cites this paper as Rozière et al. (2023)
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
“CodeLLaMA-34B [42] is an aligned version of LLaMA-234B, which is fine-tuned with 500B tokens of code data.”
From Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation (2024) · cites this paper as [42]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“At the same time, different LLMs possess unique strengths and specialize in various tasks aspects.”
From Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities (2024) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There have been many previous works that have confirmed that LLMs do have good code comprehension capabilities (He et al. 2024; Luo et al. 2024; Roziere et al. 2023; Li et al. 2023d).”
From When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Roziere et al. 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, while numerous LMs have been implemented with a primary focus on code generation, most tend to underperform the best generalist LMs (Li et al., 2022; Le et al., 2022; Roziere et al., 2023; Austin et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2022).”
From Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Utilizing SWE-bench-train, we release two fine-tuned models, SWE-Llama 7 b and 13 b, based on the CodeLlama (Rozi` ere et al., 2023) model.”
From SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues? (2023) · cites this paper as Rozière et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Prior studies showed that within the same LLM family, larger models are associated with better performance [59, 67, 73].”
From Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code-Change-Related Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The main experiments are performed on CODELLAMA (Roziere et al., 2023).”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore CODELLAMA is more specialized in coding tasks thus yielding slightly lower PERPLEX-ITY (TARGET) score compared to MISTRAL despite their comparable sizes.”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Among the LLMs tested, CODELLAMA (Roziere et al., 2023) benefits the most from good test case selection, hence we focus this work around CODELLAMA.”
From Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis? (2024) · cites this paper as Roziere et al., 2023
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, both of these tools aim to maximise the acceptance rate of the shown completions”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, optimising only acceptance rate results in worse completions [32, 49].”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Consistent with earlier research [32, 49], we acknowledge that these proxy metrics might not fully capture the usability of the interaction without potentially compromising it in some other way.”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“and contains most of the significant features found in previous work [32].”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · cited 2×
“Effective handling of long sequences is a major topic of research in transformer-based language modeling (Vaswani et al., 2017).”
BackgroundBLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation
Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W.-J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '02 · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 · Cited by 21,344 · cited 3×
“( b) Difference in BLEU scores for single line code completion of long context models compared to their respective base models before fine-tuning.”
MethodInfluentialRoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515 · cited 1×
“To measure the toxicity of the generated outputs from each of the LLMs, we employ the default ToxiGen classifier, tuned on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019).”
MethodExploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · cited 1×
“…2023; Nguyen et al., 2023), many tasks related to code understanding or synthesis have been addressed since the early 2020s with NLP models adapted for code (Raffel et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021), also see the survey by Xu & Zhu (2022).”
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087 · cited 2×
“The VADER produces sentiment scores between -1 and 1, where a positive (negative) score indicates a positive (negative) sentiment towards the population mentioned in the prompt.”
MethodLLaMA: 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 · cited 11×
“ChatGPT and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and Chinchilla (Hoffmann et al., 2022) are closed source, while BLOOM (Scao et al., 2022), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022b), and the seminal work of Llama are public (Touvron et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationKudo, T., & Richardson, J. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-2012 · Cited by 4,454 · cited 1×
“� 500B 20B 20B”
Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context
Dai, Z., Yang, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J., Le, Q., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1285 · Cited by 3,169 · cited 1×
“Long sequences in LLMs. Scaling Transformers and LLMs to long input sequences has attracted much recent interest (Dai et al., 2019; Beltagy et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2023; Ding et al., 2023).”
BackgroundTraining Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117 · cited 3×
“Collecting supervised data from human annotators or training from human feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022) is expensive for coding tasks as it requires input from professional developers.”
BackgroundMethodModel Cards for Model Reporting
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287596 · Cited by 2,681
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Rohan Anil, Andrew M. Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, Eric Chu, Jonathan H. Clark, Laurent El Shafey, Yanping Huang, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Gaurav Mishra, Erica Moreira, Mark Omernick, Kevin Robinson, Sebastian Ruder, Yi Tay, Kefan Xiao, Yuanzhong Xu, Yujing Zhang, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Junwhan Ahn, Jacob Austin, Paul Barham, Jan Botha, James Bradbury, Siddhartha Brahma, Kevin Brooks, Michele Catasta, Yong Cheng, Colin Cherry, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Clément Crepy, Shachi Dave, Mostafa Dehghani, Sunipa Dev, Jacob Devlin, Mark Díaz, Nan Du, Ethan Dyer, Vlad Feinberg, Fangxiaoyu Feng, Vlad Fienber, Markus Freitag, Xavier Garcia, Sebastian Gehrmann, Lucas Gonzalez, Guy Gur-Ari, Steven Hand, Hadi Hashemi, Le Hou, Joshua Howland, Andrea Hu, Jeffrey Hui, Jeremy Hurwitz, Michael Isard, Abe Ittycheriah, Matthew Jagielski, Wenhao Jia, Kathleen Kenealy, Maxim Krikun, Sneha Kudugunta, Chang Lan, Katherine Lee, Benjamin Lee, Eric Li, Music Li, Wei Li, YaGuang Li, Jian Li, Hyeontaek Lim, Hanzhao Lin, Zhongtao Liu, Frederick Liu, Marcello Maggioni, Aroma Mahendru, Joshua Maynez, Vedant Misra, Maysam Moussalem, Zachary Nado, John Nham, Eric Ni, Andrew Nystrom, Alicia Parrish, Marie Pellat, Martin Polacek, Alex Polozov, Reiner Pope, Siyuan Qiao, Emily Reif, Bryan Richter, Parker Riley, Alex Castro Ros, Aurko Roy, Brennan Saeta, Rajkumar Samuel, Renee Shelby, Ambrose Slone, Daniel Smilkov, David R. So, Daniel Sohn, Simon Tokumine, Dasha Valter, Vijay Vasudevan, Kiran Vodrahalli, Xuezhi Wang, Pidong Wang, Zirui Wang, Tao Wang, John Wieting, Yuhuai Wu, Kelvin Xu, Yunhan Xu, Linting Xue, Pengcheng Yin, Jiahui Yu, Qiao Zhang, Steven Zheng, Ce Zheng, Weikang Zhou, Denny Zhou, Slav Petrov, and Yonghui Wu. PaLM 2 Technical Report. arXiv:abs/2305.10403, 2023.
- Jaehun Jung, Peter West, Liwei Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Ximing Lu, Jillian Fisher, Taylor Sorensen, and Yejin Choi. Impossible distillation: From low-quality model to high-quality dataset & model for summarization and paraphrasing. arXiv:abs/2305.16635, 2023.
- Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR, 2019.
- Han Peng, Ge Li, Wenhan Wang, Yunfei Zhao, and Zhi Jin. Integrating tree path in transformer for code representation. In NeurIPS, pp. 9343-9354, 2021.
- Vighnesh Leonardo Shiv and Chris Quirk. Novel positional encodings to enable tree-based transformers. In NeurIPS, pp. 12058-12068, 2019.
- Michele Tufano, Dawn Drain, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Shao Kun Deng, and Neel Sundaresan. Unit test case generation with transformers. arXiv:abs/2009.05617, 2020.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–609 of 609
Qiu, Y., Wang, S., Qin, Y., Geng, M., & Dong, D. (2026) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1145/3832783.3837454
Extender: A Multi-agent System for Code Extensibility Review
Chen, J., & Shen, J. (2026) · International Workshop on Agentic AI for Next-Generation Software Development · doi:10.1145/3843282.3844424
Amiri, M., Mokari, A., & Bocklitz, T. W. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02369-8
Arithmetic Reasoning with LLM: Prolog Generation & Permutation
Yang, X., Chen, B., & Tam, Y.-C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17893
“Note that this setting resulted in training only 0.248% of the 7 billion parameters for Llama2 and CodeLlama, and 0.188% of the 7 billion for Mistral.”
MethodInfluentialPARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks
Chang, M., Chhablani, G., Clegg, A., Cote, M. D., Desai, R., Hlavac, M., Karashchuk, V., Krantz, J., Mottaghi, R., Parashar, P., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00081
LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluation
Fakhoury, S., Naik, A., Sakkas, G., Chakraborty, S., & Lahiri, S. K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10100
“Following [1], [45], [46] for all models we settle on a temperature of 0.8, as it maximizes the number of examples for which at least one correct code is produced within 100 suggestions for k > 1 in pass @ k .”
MethodInfluentialA Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion
de Moor, A., van Deursen, A., & Izadi, M. (2024) · arXiv
“Recent advancements have expanded the considered context to include not only the subsequent code [3, 15, 19, 26, 35], but also related snippets from other files to enrich the prediction accuracy [27, 45].”
BackgroundType-Constrained Code Generation with Language Models
Mündler, N., He, J., Wang, H., Sen, K., Song, D., & Vechev, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09246
Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rozière, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., Rapin, J., Kozhevnikov, A., Evtimov, I., Bitton, J., Bhatt, M., Ferrer, C. C., Grattafiori, A., Xiong, W., Défossez, A., Copet, J., Azhar, F., Touvron, H., Martin, L., Usunier, N., Scialom, T., & Synnaeve, G.
- Affiliations
- École nationale des ponts et chaussées (FR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2308.12950
- OpenAlex
- W4386185625
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 92
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 232 · 2024: 216 · 2023: 18
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Keywords
- CodeLlama, code large language models, Llama 2, HumanEval, MBPP, code generation benchmarks
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
