PreprintCited by 73Software Engineering ResearchTopic ModelingTeaching and Learning Programming

Seed-Coder: Let the Code Model Curate Data for Itself

Open access
Seed, ByteDance, Zhang, Yuyu, Su, Jing, Sun, Yifan, Xi, Chenguang, Xiao, Xia, Zheng, Shen, Zhang, Anxiang +19 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Code data in large language model (LLM) pretraining is recognized crucial not only for code-related tasks but also for enhancing general intelligence of LLMs. Current open-source LLMs often heavily rely on human effort to produce their code pretraining data, such as employing hand-crafted filtering rules tailored to individual programming languages, or using human-annotated data to train quality filters. However, these approaches are inherently limited in scalability, prone to subjective biases, and costly to extend and maintain across diverse programming languages. To address these challenges, we introduce Seed-Coder, a series of open-source LLMs comprising base, instruct and reasoning models of 8B size, minimizing human involvement in data construction. Our code pretraining data is produced by a model-centric data pipeline, which predominantly leverages LLMs for scoring and filtering code data. The instruct model is further trained via supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, and the reasoning model leverages Long-Chain-of-Thought (LongCoT) reinforcement learning to improve multi-step code reasoning. Seed-Coder achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source models of similar size and even surpasses some much larger models, demonstrating superior performance in code generation, code completion, code editing, code reasoning, and software engineering tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.03524

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Validation with Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct yields similar results.

    “We also validate with Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct (ByteDance Seed et al., 2025), obtaining similar results (see Section G).”

    From SWE-Pruner: Self-Adaptive Context Pruning for Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as ByteDance Seed et al., 2025

  • LeetCode and DevEval are among the most widely adopted benchmarks for evaluating LLM code generation capabilities.

    “we argue that LeetCode and DevEval are among the most widely adopted benchmarks for evaluating LLM code generation capabilities [30, 43, 66]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

19 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seed, B., Zhang, Y., Su, J., Sun, Y., Xi, C., Xiao, X., Zheng, S., Zhang, A., Liu, K., Zan, D., Sun, T., Zhu, J., Xin, S., Huang, D., Bai, Y., Dong, L., Li, C., Chen, J., Zhou, H., Huang, Y., Ning, G., Song, X., Chen, J., Liu, S., Shen, K., Xiang, L., & Wu, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416131244
Cited by
3
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • 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
large language models, open-source LLMs, code generation, code completion, code editing, preference optimization, supervised fine-tuning, programming languages

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