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
Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604
Self-citationPaLM: 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
Longformer: The Long-Document Transformer
Beltagy, I., Peters, M. E., & Cohan, A. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.05150 · Cited by 2,281 · 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).”
BackgroundRoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding
Su, J., Lu, Y., Pan, S., Murtadha, A., Wen, B., & Liu, Y. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.09864 · Cited by 1,952 · cited 9×
“For long context fine-tuning (LCFT), we use a learning rate of 2 e − 5 , a sequence length of 16,384, and reset RoPE frequencies with a base value of θ = 10 6 .”
MethodInfluentialLost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts
Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., & Liang, P. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 · Cited by 1,612 · cited 2×
“Liu et al. (2023b) showed that the inability to recall content placed in the middle of long prompts is a common failure mode in LLMs; our retrieval task is analogous to their setup, albeit tailored to code models which are not fine-tuned to follow instructions.”
BackgroundWang, Y., Wang, W., Joty, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.685 · Cited by 1,495 · cited 3×
“In parallel, models specifically trained or fine-tuned for code understanding and program synthesis from natural language prompts emerged with LLMs such as Codex (Chen et al., 2021), CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021), InCoder (Fried et al., 2023), AlphaCode (Li et al., 2022), CodeGen (Nijkamp et al., 2023b) and CodeGen 2 (Ni…”
BackgroundEvaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03374 · Cited by 1,436
The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration
Holtzman, A., Buys, J., Du, L., Forbes, M., & Choi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09751 · Cited by 1,304 · cited 1×
“(2022) and use nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2020) ( p = 0 .”
BackgroundFinetuned 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 · cited 1×
“For end-users, the utility of LLMs is significantly improved by instruction fine-tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023b), which also helps preventing unsafe, toxic or biased generations.”
BackgroundCompetition-level code generation with AlphaCode
Li, Y., Choi, D., Chung, J., Kushman, N., Schrittwieser, J., Leblond, R., Eccles, T., Keeling, J., Gimeno, F., Dal Lago, A., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abq1158 · Cited by 1,043 · cited 9×
“…& Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a), as well as solving math problems as demonstrated by PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) or Codex (Chen et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialUnified Pre-training for Program Understanding and GenerationPreprint
Ahmad, W. U., Chakraborty, S., Ray, B., & Chang, K.-W. (2021) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.06333 · Cited by 1,000 · 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).”
Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units
Sennrich, R., Haddow, B., & Birch, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1162 · Cited by 974
Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models
Hoffmann, J., Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Buchatskaya, E., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Casas, D. D. L., Hendricks, L. A., Welbl, J., Clark, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2176 · Cited by 932 · cited 4×
“Moreover, the Chinchilla scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022) indicate that larger models would benefit more from training on more tokens.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.07958 · Cited by 899 · cited 6×
“The TruthfulQA benchmark comprises 817 questions spread across 38 categories, encompassing topics such as health, finance, law, and politics (Lin et al., 2022).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learning
Gotmare, A. D., Hoi, S., Le, H., Savarese, S., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.01780 · Cited by 605 · cited 2×
“…filter, cluster, or improve the correctness of programs when few candidates must be submitted (Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a; Le et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), or unit tests them within a reinforcement learning objective to enrich the training signal (Le et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundTraining Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14168 · Cited by 575 · cited 2×
“To measure math-reasoning capabilities of the proposed method, we report results on the GSM8K benchmark Cobbe et al. (2021), which is comprised of a set of middle-school math word problems.”
MethodResultCodeXGLUE: 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 2×
“The Python subsection of the CodeXGLUE code summarization benchmark Lu et al. (2021) can be used as an infilling benchmark (Fried et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023) in which a docstring surrounded by triple quotes has to be inserted between the function header and body in a Python function definition.”
BackgroundMethodUnnatural Instructions: Tuning Language Models with (Almost) No Human LaborPreprint
Honovich, O., Scialom, T., Levy, O., & Schick, T. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09689 · Cited by 516 · cited 1×
“FIM Size HumanEval MBPP Test loss pass@1 pass@10 pass@100 pass@1 pass@10 pass@100”
Self-citationGraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flow
Guo, D., Ren, S., Lu, S., Feng, Z., Tang, D., Liu, S., Zhou, L., Duan, N., Svyatkovskiy, A., Fu, S., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.08366 · Cited by 480 · cited 3×
“The Python subsection of the CodeXGLUE code summarization benchmark Lu et al. (2021) can be used as an infilling benchmark (Fried et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023) in which a docstring surrounded by triple quotes has to be inserted between the function header and body in a Python function definition.”
BackgroundMethodMultiPL-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 394 · cited 6×
“For that, we use the MultiPL-E benchmark (Cassano et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialProgram Synthesis with Large Language Models
Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., Jiang, E., Cai, C., Terry, M., Le, Q., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07732 · Cited by 388 · cited 3×
“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.”
MethodCodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program Synthesis
Nijkamp, E., Pang, B., Hayashi, H., Tu, L., Wang, H., Zhou, Y., Savarese, S., & Xiong, C. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.13474 · Cited by 330 · cited 3×
“Code Llama 7B outperforms larger models such as CodeGen-Multi or StarCoder, and is on par with Codex (code-cushman-001, Chen et al., 2021).”
MethodGPT-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 5×
“Early observations with LLMs such as GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2021) or GPT-J (Wang & Komatsuzaki, 2021) showed that adding code in the training data makes program synthesis possible even with medium size LLMs. Code from open-source software is now a standard part of the training data for general-purpose LLMs such as PaL…”
MethodInfluentialThe adverse effects of code duplication in machine learning models of code
Allamanis, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software · doi:10.1145/3359591.3359735 · Cited by 284
Planning with Large Language Models for Code GenerationPreprint
Zhang, S., Chen, Z., Shen, Y., Ding, M., Tenenbaum, J., & Gan, C. (2023) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.05510 · Cited by 277 · cited 2×
“A recent stream of work takes into account program execution or unit tests to filter, cluster, or improve the correctness of programs when few candidates must be submitted (Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a; Le et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), or unit tests them within a reinforcement learning objective to enrich…”
BackgroundToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detection
Hartvigsen, T., Gabriel, S., Palangi, H., Sap, M., Ray, D., & Kamar, E. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09509 · Cited by 276 · cited 6×
“Table 20 presents the percentages of toxic generations for different demographic groups among ToxiGen prompts.”
MethodInfluentialUnit Test Case Generation with Transformers and Focal ContextPreprint
Tufano, M., Drain, D., Svyatkovskiy, A., Deng, S. K., & Sundaresan, N. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.05617 · Cited by 263 · cited 1×
“…fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a), as well as solving math problems as demonstrated by PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) or Codex…”
MethodStarCoder: may the source be with you!
Li, R., Allal, L. B., Zi, Y., Muennighoff, N., Kocetkov, D., Mou, C., Marone, M., Akiki, C., Li, J., Chim, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.06161 · Cited by 261
BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generation
Dhamala, J., Sun, T., Kumar, V., Krishna, S., Pruksachatkun, Y., Chang, K.-W., & Gupta, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445924 · Cited by 244 · cited 1×
“We employ the Bias in Open-Ended Language Generation Dataset ( BOLD ) (Dhamala et al., 2021) to investigate how the sentiment in the model’s outputs may differ based on demographic attributes.”
MethodCodeBERT: 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) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.08155 · Cited by 243 · 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).”
Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher
Rae, J. W., Borgeaud, S., Cai, T., Millican, K., Hoffmann, J., Song, F., Aslanides, J., Henderson, S., Ring, R., Young, S., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.11446 · Cited by 235
CodeGen2: Lessons for Training LLMs on Programming and Natural LanguagesPreprint
Nijkamp, E., Hayashi, H., Xiong, C., Savarese, S., & Zhou, Y. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.02309 · Cited by 234 · cited 1×
“…et al., 2021), CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021), InCoder (Fried et al., 2023), AlphaCode (Li et al., 2022), CodeGen (Nijkamp et al., 2023b) and CodeGen 2 (Nijkamp et al., 2023a), GPT-NeoX (Black et al., 2022), SantaCoder (Allal et al., 2023), StarCoder (Li et al., 2023) and phi-1 (Gunasekar et al.,…”
Transformer Language Models without Positional Encodings Still Learn Positional Information
Haviv, A., Ram, O., Press, O., Izsak, P., & Levy, O. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.16634 · Cited by 210 · cited 2×
“Recent work suggests that causal models do not require an explicit encoding of position information (Haviv et al., 2022; Kazemnejad et al., 2023), a hypothesis we did not test in this work as we demonstrated that starting from pretrained Llama 2 models is significantly more efficient than training…”
BackgroundMEGABYTE: Predicting Million-byte Sequences with Multiscale Transformers
Yu, L., Simig, D., Flaherty, C., Aghajanyan, A., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lewis, M. (2023) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.07185 · Cited by 209 · 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).”
BackgroundA Length-Extrapolatable TransformerPreprint
Sun, Y., Dong, L., Patra, B., Ma, S.-M., Huang, S.-H., Benhaim, A., Chaudhary, V., Song, X., & Wei, F. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10554 · Cited by 192 · cited 1×
“…is a two-digit number that is randomly sampled based on the overall number of tokens in the prompt: (a) Attention expectations over relative distances between key and value embeddings for different frequency regimes, using the bound derived in (Sun et al., 2023) for embedding dimensionality 1024.”
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 · cited 8×
“Our code-training for 7B, 13B and 70B Code Llama models features a multitask objective (Fried et al., 2023) consisting of both autoregressive and causal infilling prediction, enabling applications such as real-time completion in source code editors or docstring generation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPenedo, G., Malartic, Q., Hesslow, D., Cojocaru, R., Cappelli, A., Alobeidli, H., Pannier, B., Almazrouei, E., & Launay, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.01116 · Cited by 164 · cited 1×
“It is well-known that data quality is critical in the training and responsible development of LLMs (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2022; Penedo et al., 2023), and this is also true for code as discussed by Allal et al.”
BackgroundTrain Short, Test Long: Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolation
Press, O., Smith, N. A., & Lewis, M. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.12409 · Cited by 161 · cited 2×
“3 Press et al. (2022) propose a linear bias for attacking extrapolation; in contrast, our approach seeks to reduce existing bias towards shot-range attention.”
MethodResultMeasuring 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 · cited 10×
“With the same training process, our larger models outperform their smaller counterparts on almost every metric from HumanEval, MBPP and APPS (Table 2, 3).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGunasekar, S., Zhang, Y., Aneja, J., Mendes, C. C. T., Del Giorno, A., Gopi, S., Javaheripi, M., Kauffmann, P., de Rosa, G., Saarikivi, O., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.11644 · Cited by 138 · cited 3×
“…2023b) and CodeGen 2 (Nijkamp et al., 2023a), GPT-NeoX (Black et al., 2022), SantaCoder (Allal et al., 2023), StarCoder (Li et al., 2023) and phi-1 (Gunasekar et al., 2023), consistently demonstrating better performance on code benchmarks than general-purpose LLMs of comparable or even larger size.”
BackgroundMethodContrastive Code Representation Learning
Jain, P., Jain, A., Zhang, T., Abbeel, P., Gonzalez, J., & Stoica, I. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.482 · Cited by 129 · cited 1×
“…of programs, with specialized objectives for code deobfuscation (Lachaux et al., 2021), contrastive learning through semantic-preserving code transformations (Jain et al., 2021), leveraging Abstract Syntax Trees to learn tree-aware positional encodings (Shiv & Quirk, 2019; Peng et al., 2021).”
DOBF: A Deobfuscation Pre-Training Objective for Programming LanguagesPreprint
Rozière, B., Lachaux, M.-A., Szafraniec, M., & Lample, G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07492 · Cited by 113 · cited 1×
“…of works proposed to incorporate within the training objective structural knowledge of programs, with specialized objectives for code deobfuscation (Lachaux et al., 2021), contrastive learning through semantic-preserving code transformations (Jain et al., 2021), leveraging Abstract Syntax Trees to…”
BackgroundSelf-citationCan OpenAI's codex fix bugs?: an evaluation on QuixBugs
Prenner, J. A., Babii, H., & Robbes, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Automated Program Repair · doi:10.1145/3524459.3527351 · Cited by 99 · cited 2×
“…refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a),…”
BackgroundCodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests
Chen, B., Zhang, F., Nguyen, A., Zan, D., Lin, Z., Lou, J.-G., & Chen, W. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.10397 · Cited by 92 · cited 7×
“However, instead of downscaling frequencies linearly as Chen et al. (2023b), we change the base period from which they are derived.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test FeedbackPreprint
Liu, J., Zhu, Y., Xiao, K., Fu, Q., Han, X., Yang, W., & Ye, D. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.04349 · Cited by 91 · cited 2×
“Liu et al. (2023b) showed that the inability to recall content placed in the middle of long prompts is a common failure mode in LLMs; our retrieval task is analogous to their setup, albeit tailored to code models which are not fine-tuned to follow instructions.”
BackgroundSelf-citationLLM Censorship: A Machine Learning Challenge or a Computer Security Problem?Preprint
Glukhov, D., Shumailov, I., Gal, Y., Papernot, N., & Papyan, V. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.10719 · Cited by 89 · cited 1×
“Dual intent prompts are requests for help with writing code that could be used maliciously but the prompt does not directly address the topic (example “Mosaic Prompts” Glukhov et al. (2023)).”
BackgroundUnsupervised translation of programming languages
Lachaux, M.-A., Roziere, B., Chanussot, L., & Lample, G. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.03511 · Cited by 83 · cited 1×
“These tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al.,…”
MethodSelf-citationRepairing Bugs in Python Assignments Using Large Language ModelsPreprint
Zhang, J.-L., Cambronero, J., Gulwani, S., Le, V., Piskac, R., Soares, G., & Verbruggen, G. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.14876 · Cited by 68 · cited 2×
“…tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022;…”
BackgroundMethodGPT-NeoX-20B: An Open-Source Autoregressive Language Model
Black, S., Biderman, S., Hallahan, E., Anthony, Q., Gao, L., Golding, L., He, H., Leahy, C., McDonell, K., Phang, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.06745 · Cited by 67 · cited 2×
“In parallel, models specifically trained or fine-tuned for code understanding and program synthesis from natural language prompts emerged with LLMs such as Codex (Chen et al., 2021), CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021), InCoder (Fried et al., 2023), AlphaCode (Li et al., 2022), CodeGen (Nijkamp et al., 2023b) and CodeGen 2 (Ni…”
MethodSantaCoder: don't reach for the stars!
Allal, L. B., Li, R., Kocetkov, D., Mou, C., Akiki, C., Ferrandis, C. M., Muennighoff, N., Mishra, M., Gu, A., Dey, M., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.03988 · Cited by 61 · cited 2×
“In addition to program synthesis from natural language prompts or infilling (Fried et al., 2023; Bavarian et al., 2022; Li et al., 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.”
BackgroundLearning 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×
“…et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a), as well as solving math problems as…”
BackgroundThe Impact of Positional Encoding on Length Generalization in Transformers
Kazemnejad, A., Padhi, I., Ramamurthy, K. N., Das, P., & Reddy, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.19466 · Cited by 54 · cited 1×
“Recent work suggests that causal models do not require an explicit encoding of position information (Haviv et al., 2022; Kazemnejad et al., 2023), a hypothesis we did not test in this work as we demonstrated that starting from pretrained Llama 2 models is significantly more efficient than training…”
BackgroundExtending Context Window of Large Language Models via Positional Interpolation
Chen, S., Wong, S., Chen, L., & Tian, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.15595 · Cited by 50 · cited 7×
“However, instead of downscaling frequencies linearly as Chen et al. (2023b), we change the base period from which they are derived.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBreak-It-Fix-It: Unsupervised Learning for Program RepairPreprint
Yasunaga, M., & Liang, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.06600 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“These tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al.,…”
MethodEfficient Training of Language Models to Fill in the Middle
Bavarian, M., Jun, H., Tezak, N., Schulman, J., McLeavey, C., Tworek, J., & Chen, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.14255 · Cited by 47 · cited 7×
“We observe a further increase in performance when prompting the models in SPM format, like witnessed in Bavarian et al. (2022).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCM3: A Causal Masked Multimodal Model of the Internet
Aghajanyan, A., Huang, B., Ross, C., Karpukhin, V., Xu, H., Goyal, N., Okhonko, D., Joshi, M., Ghosh, G., Lewis, M., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.07520 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“We train in lling models following the concept of causal masking (Aghajanyan et al., 2022; Fried et al., 2023), where parts of a training sequence are moved to the end, and the reordered sequence is predicted autoregressively.”
MethodJung, J., West, P., Jiang, L., Brahman, F., Lu, X., Fisher, J. R., Sorensen, T., & Choi, Y. (2023) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.250 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“5, following Jung et al. (2023), in order to obtain good performance on simple benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP.”
Leveraging automated unit tests for unsupervised code translation
Roziere, B., Zhang, J. M., Charton, F., Harman, M., Synnaeve, G., & Lample, G. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.06773 · Cited by 39 · cited 1×
“These tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al.,…”
MethodSelf-citationLongNet: Scaling Transformers to 1, 000, 000, 000 Tokens
Ding, J., Ma, S., Dong, L., Zhang, X., Huang, S., Wang, W., Zheng, N., & Wei, F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.02486 · Cited by 34 · cited 2×
“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).”
BackgroundMeet in the Middle: A New Pre-training Paradigm
Nguyen, A., Karampatziakis, N., & Chen, W.-Z. (2023) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/075280-0225 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“In addition to program synthesis from natural language prompts or infilling (Fried et al., 2023; Bavarian et al., 2022; Li et al., 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…”
Code translation with compiler representations
Szafraniec, M., Roziere, B., Leather, H., Charton, F., Labatut, P., & Synnaeve, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.03578 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“These tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al.,…”
MethodSelf-citationA Survey on Pretrained Language Models for Neural Code Intelligence
Xu, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10079 · Cited by 19 · cited 2×
“A prominent use-case is the formal interaction with computer systems, such as program synthesis from natural language specifications, code completion, debugging, and generating documentation (for a survey, see Xu & Zhu, 2022, also see Section 5).”
MethodMultiPL-E: A Scalable and Extensible 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. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.08227 · Cited by 17
LongCoder: A Long-Range Pre-trained Language Model for Code Completion
Guo, D., Xu, C., Duan, N., Yin, J., & McAuley, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.14893 · Cited by 16 · cited 3×
“We compare the original test set from (Guo et al., 2023) to our resampled “LCC-balanced” test set.”
MethodResultInfluentialOpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 · cited 6×
“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).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models
Zhang, S., Roller, S., Goyal, N., Artetxe, M., Chen, M., Chen, S., Dewan, C., Diab, M., Li, X., Lin, X. V., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.01068 · cited 2×
“…tasks include code summarization, refinement, translation (Rozière et al., 2020; 2021; Szafraniec et al., 2023) fixing bugs (Yasunaga & Liang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022a; Prenner et al., 2022), fixing build errors (Tarlow et al., 2020) or generating unit tests (Tufano et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022;…”
BackgroundMethodBLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model
Workshop, B., :, Scao, T. L., Fan, A., Akiki, C., Pavlick, E., Ilić, S., Hesslow, D., Castagné, R., Luccioni, A. S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.05100
Self-citation
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
Large language models for software engineering: survey and open problems
Fan, A., Gokkaya, B., Harman, M., Lyubarskiy, M., Sengupta, S., Yoo, S., & Zhang, J. M. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering (ICSE-FoSE) · doi:10.1109/icse-fose59343.2023.00008 · Cited by 650
“On the 24 th. August 2023, Meta released open-sourced Code Llama [29], a state-of-the-art for publicly available LLMs on coding tasks.”
BackgroundJiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335
Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation
Gao, D., Wang, H., Li, Y., Sun, X., Qian, Y., Ding, B., & Zhou, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3641204.3641221 · Cited by 342
Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries
Chao, P., Robey, A., Dobriban, E., Hassani, H., Pappas, G. J., & Wong, E. (2025) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml64287.2025.00010 · Cited by 1,298
“Although still at its infancy, the field of study surrounding large language models (LLMs) has shown significant promise in advancing numerous fields, including code generation [28], business analytics [38], and medicine [32].”
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
