PreprintCited by 4Software Engineering ResearchTopic ModelingSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Beyond Synthetic Benchmarks: Evaluating LLM Performance on Real-World Class-Level Code Generation

Open access
Rahman, Musfiqur, Khatoonabadi, SayedHassan, Shihab, Emad·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on function-level code generation benchmarks, yet real-world software development increasingly demands class-level implementations that integrate multiple methods, attributes, and dependencies within authentic project contexts. This gap between benchmark performance and practical utility raises critical questions about LLMs' readiness for production code assistance, particularly regarding their ability to generalize across familiar and novel codebases. We introduce a benchmark derived from real-world open-source repositories, comprising classes divided into seen and unseen partitions to evaluate generalization under practical conditions. We systematically examine how input specification completeness and retrieval-augmented generation affect class-level correctness across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs. Our evaluation reveals a substantial performance gap: while LLMs achieve 84 to 89% correctness on synthetic benchmarks, they attain only 25 to 34% on real-world class tasks, with minimal distinction between familiar and novel codebases. Comprehensive documentation provides marginal improvements (1 to 3%), whereas retrieval augmentation yields greater gains (4 to 7%) by supplying concrete implementation patterns. Error analysis identifies AttributeError, TypeError, and AssertionError as dominant failure modes, with distinct patterns between synthetic and real-world scenarios. These findings provide actionable insights for enhancing context modelling, documentation strategies, and retrieval integration in production code assistance tools.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.26130

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, J. Ai, S. Altman, A. Applebaum, E. Arbus, R. K. Arora, Y. Bai, B. Baker, H. Bao, et al. gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925, 2025. · arXiv
  2. J. Austin, A. Odena, M. Nye, M. Bosma, H. Michalewski, D. Dohan, E. Jiang, C. Cai, M. Terry, Q. Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021. · arXiv
  3. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological), 57(1):289-300, 1995.
  4. B. W. Boehm. Software engineering economics. IEEE transactions on Software Engineering, (1):4-21, 1984.
  5. I. Bouzenia, P. Devanbu, and M. Pradel. Repairagent: An autonomous, llm-based agent for program repair. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17134, 2024. · arXiv
  6. M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. D. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. · arXiv
  7. N. Cliff. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological bulletin, 114(3):494, 1993.
  8. H. Cramér. Mathematical methods of statistics, volume 9. Princeton university press, 1999.
  9. X. Du, M. Liu, K. Wang, H. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Chen, J. Feng, C. Sha, X. Peng, and Y. Lou. Classeval: A manually-crafted benchmark for evaluating llms on class-level code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01861, 2023. · arXiv
  10. R. A. Fisher. On the interpretation of 𝜒 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of p. Journal of the royal statistical society, 85(1):87-94, 1922.
  11. R. A. Fisher. Statistical methods for research workers. In Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution, pages 66-70. Springer, 1970.
  12. M. Friedman. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the american statistical association, 32(200):675-701, 1937.
  13. M. Friedman. A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The annals of mathematical statistics, 11(1):86-92, 1940.
  14. R. Golman and G. Loewenstein. Information gaps: A theory of preferences regarding the presence and absence of information. Decision, 5(3):143, 2018.
  15. D. Guo, S. Ren, S. Lu, Z. Feng, D. Tang, S. Liu, L. Zhou, N. Duan, A. Svyatkovskiy, S. Fu, et al. Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08366, 2020. · arXiv
  16. D. Hendrycks, S. Basart, S. Kadavath, M. Mazeika, A. Arora, E. Guo, C. Burns, S. Puranik, H. He, D. Song, et al. Measuring coding challenge competence with apps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.09938, 2021. · arXiv
  17. B. Hui, J. Yang, Z. Cui, J. Yang, D. Liu, L. Zhang, T. Liu, J. Zhang, B. Yu, K. Lu, et al. Qwen2. 5-coder technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186, 2024. · arXiv
  18. H. Husain, H.-H. Wu, T. Gazit, M. Allamanis, and M. Brockschmidt. Codesearchnet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09436, 2019. · arXiv
  19. J. Jiang, F. Wang, J. Shen, S. Kim, and S. Kim. A survey on large language models for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00515, 2024. · arXiv
  20. W. H. Kruskal and W. A. Wallis. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association, 47(260):583-621, 1952.
  21. N. M. Laird and J. H. Ware. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, pages 963-974, 1982.
  22. J. Li, X. Shi, K. Zhang, L. Li, G. Li, Z. Tao, F. Liu, C. Tao, and Z. Jin. Coderag: Supportive code retrieval on bigraph for real-world code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10046, 2025. · arXiv
  23. R. Li, L. B. Allal, Y. Zi, N. Muennighoff, D. Kocetkov, C. Mou, M. Marone, C. Akiki, J. Li, J. Chim, et al. Starcoder: may the source be with you! arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06161, 2023. · arXiv
  24. A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Zhang, C. Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024. · arXiv
  25. G. Loewenstein. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin, 116(1):75, 1994.
  26. S. Lukasczyk and G. Fraser. Pynguin: Automated unit test generation for python. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings, pages 168-172, 2022.
  27. G. Macbeth, E. Razumiejczyk, and R. D. Ledesma. Cliff's delta calculator: A non-parametric effect size program for two groups of observations. Universitas Psychologica, 10(2):545-555, 2011.
  28. H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 50-60, 1947.
  29. N. Munaiah, S. Kroh, C. Cabrey, and M. Nagappan. Curating github for engineered software projects. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(6):3219-3253, 2017.
  30. A. Panichella, F. M. Kifetew, and P. Tonella. Automated test case generation as a many-objective optimisation problem with dynamic selection of the targets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 44(2):122-158, 2017.
  31. K. Pearson. X. on the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50(302):157-175, 1900.
  32. M. Rahman, S. Khatoonabadi, A. Abdellatif, and E. Shihab. Automatic detection of llm-generated code: A case study of claude 3 haiku. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01382, 2024. · arXiv
  33. K. Ronanki, S. Arvidsson, and J. Axell. Prompt engineering guidelines for using large language models in requirements engineering. In Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pages 245-262. Springer, 2025.
  34. P. Sahoo, A. K. Singh, S. Saha, V. Jain, S. Mondal, and A. Chadha. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927, 2024. · arXiv
  35. S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3-4):591-611, 1965.
  36. I. Sommerville. Software engineering (ed.). America: Pearson Education Inc, 2011.
  37. F. Tambon, A. Moradi-Dakhel, A. Nikanjam, F. Khomh, M. C. Desmarais, and G. Antoniol. Bugs in large language models generated code: An empirical study. Empirical Software Engineering, 30(3):65, 2025.
  38. Y. Tao, Y. Qin, and Y. Liu. Retrieval-augmented code generation: A survey with focus on repository-level approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04905, 2025. · arXiv
  39. C. Tony, N. E. Díaz Ferreyra, M. Mutas, S. Dhif, and R. Scandariato. Prompting techniques for secure code generation: A systematic investigation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(8):1-53, 2025.
  40. Y. Wang, H. Le, A. D. Gotmare, N. D. Bui, J. Li, and S. C. Hoi. Codet5+: Open code large language models for code understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07922, 2023. · arXiv
  41. F. Wilcoxon. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution, pages 196-202. Springer, 1992.
  42. T. Xiao, Y. Fan, F. Calefato, C. Treude, R. G. Kula, H. Hata, and S. Baltes. Self-admitted genai usage in open-source software. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10422, 2025. · arXiv
  43. G. Yang, Y. Zhou, W. Cheng, X. Zhang, X. Chen, T. Y. Zhuo, K. Liu, X. Zhou, D. Lo, and T. Chen. Less is more: Docstring compression in code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22793, 2024. · arXiv
  44. Z. Yang, S. Chen, C. Gao, Z. Li, X. Hu, K. Liu, and X. Xia. An empirical study of retrieval-augmented code generation: Challenges and opportunities. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2025.
  45. S. Yeo, Y.-S. Ma, S. C. Kim, H. Jun, and T. Kim. Framework for evaluating code generation ability of large language models. Etri Journal, 46(1):106-117, 2024.
  46. H. Yu, B. Shen, D. Ran, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y. Ma, G. Liang, Y. Li, Q. Wang, and T. Xie. Codereval: A benchmark of pragmatic code generation with generative pre-trained models. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 1-12, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Rahman, M., Khatoonabadi, S., & Shihab, E.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7103171761
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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 › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
large language models, synthetic benchmark, retrieval-augmented generation, program correctness, error analysis, open source projects, code completion

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond Synthetic Benchmarks: Evaluating LLM Performance on Real-World Class-Level Code Generation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2510.26130
The paper
Rahman, M., Khatoonabadi, S., & Shihab, E. (2025). Beyond Synthetic Benchmarks: Evaluating LLM Performance on Real-World Class-Level Code Generation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.26130