CodeEditorBench: Evaluating Code Editing Capability of Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) for code are rapidly evolving, with code editing emerging as a critical capability. We introduce CodeEditorBench, an evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess the performance of LLMs in code editing tasks, including debugging, translating, polishing, and requirement switching. Unlike existing benchmarks focusing solely on code generation, CodeEditorBench emphasizes real-world scenarios and practical aspects of software development. We curate diverse coding challenges and scenarios from five sources, covering various programming languages, complexity levels, and editing tasks. Evaluation of 19 LLMs reveals that closed-source models (particularly Gemini-Ultra and GPT-4), outperform open-source models in CodeEditorBench, highlighting differences in model performance based on problem types and prompt sensitivities. CodeEditorBench aims to catalyze advancements in LLMs by providing a robust platform for assessing code editing capabilities. We will release all prompts and datasets to enable the community to expand the dataset and benchmark emerging LLMs. By introducing CodeEditorBench, we contribute to the advancement of LLMs in code editing and provide a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
APPS, CodeEditorBench-switch-java, CodeEditorBench-debug-py, CodeEditorBench-switchc, and CodeEditorBench-switch-py are mainly derived from LeetCode.
“Benchmarks such as APPS, CodeEditorBench -switch-java , CodeEditorBench -debug-py , CodeEditorBench -switchc , and CodeEditorBench -switch-py are mainly derived from LeetCode.”
From LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report
Hui, B., Yang, J., Cui, Z., Yang, J., Liu, D., Zhang, L., Liu, T., Zhang, J., Yu, B., Lu, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12186 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“However, in comparison with the recently state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs, Claude-3.”
ResultChatGPT vs. Gemini: Comparative Evaluation in Cybersecurity Education with Prompt Engineering Impact
Nguyen, T., & Sayadi, H. (2024) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie61694.2024.10893499 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Zhou, X., Weyssow, M., Widyasari, R., Zhang, T., He, J., Lyu, Y., Chang, J., Zhang, B., Huang, D., & Lo, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06215 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Guo, J., Li, Z., Liu, X., Ma, K., Zheng, T., Yu, Z., Pan, D., LI, Y., Liu, R., Wang, Y., Guo, S., Qu, X., Yue, X., Zhang, G., Chen, W., & Fu, J.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Tongji University (CN)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.03543
- OpenAlex
- W4394007603
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- code editing, large language models, benchmark, debugging, program translation, prompt sensitivity, open-source vs closed-source models, GPT-4, software development
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