Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 cited by

Beyond Correctness: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Code Generation for Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.11470 v2 pith:IKCRTACL submitted 2024-07-16 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CL

Beyond Correctness: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Code Generation for Large Language Models

classification cs.SE cs.AIcs.CL
keywords codellmscorrectnessdimensionsracebenchmarksbeyondreal-world
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In recent years, researchers have proposed numerous benchmarks to evaluate the impressive coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, current benchmarks primarily assess the accuracy of LLM-generated code, while neglecting other critical dimensions that also significantly impact code quality in real-world development. Moreover, relying exclusively on correctness as the guiding metric renders LLMs susceptible to data contamination. Therefore, this paper proposes the RACE benchmark, which comprehensively evaluates the quality of code generated by LLMs across 4 dimensions: Readability, mAintainability, Correctness, and Efficiency. Specifically, considering the demand-dependent nature of dimensions beyond correctness, we design various types of user requirements for each dimension to assess the model's ability to generate correct code that also meets user demands. We analyze 28 representative LLMs based on RACE and find that: 1) current correctness-centric benchmarks fail to capture the multifaceted requirements of code in real-world scenarios, while RACE provides a comprehensive evaluation that reveals the defects of LLMs across multiple dimensions; 2) the RACE benchmark serves as an effective tool for resisting the risk of data contamination; 3) even the most advanced code LLMs still encounter significant challenges in customized requirements involving complex instructions; 4) most LLMs exhibit an inherent preference for specific coding style. These findings highlight the need for a multidimensional evaluation of code LLMs, emphasizing metrics beyond correctness for real-world applications. Future efforts should aim to develop novel learning algorithms to enhance code generation under varied constraints and improve coverage and usability for diverse user needs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do AI Models Dream of Faster Code? An Empirical Study on LLM-Proposed Performance Improvements in Real-World Software

    cs.SE 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs propose volatile performance improvements on real-world Java tasks that lag human developers on average, showing algorithmic benchmarks overestimate capabilities.

  2. MetaLint: Easy-to-Hard Generalization for Code Linting

    cs.SE 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MetaLint uses meta-learning to let models generalize from easy synthetic linting data to hard human-curated best practices, yielding large F-score gains on a new PEP-inspired benchmark.

  3. From Execution to Education: A Bloom-Aligned Framework for Measuring Educational Control in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    On 2,520 programming tasks, matched Qwen general and coder models reliably raise Bloom cognitive demand but fail to lower it, so execution skill does not imply educational control.

  4. Subjective Code Preferences in Experts and Large Language Models

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLMs frequently reverse their stated coding preferences when shown actual code instead of descriptions, show positional bias, and produce more polarized ratings than human experts on complexity, commenting, modularity...

  5. Bridging Generation and Training: A Systematic Review of Quality Issues in LLMs for Code

    cs.SE 2026-05 accept novelty 6.0

    A review of 114 studies creates taxonomies for code and data quality issues, formalizes 18 propagation mechanisms from training data defects to LLM-generated code defects, and synthesizes detection and mitigation techniques.

  6. LLM vs. Human Unit Tests: Fault Detection on Real Python Bugs

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM-generated unit tests with retrieval-augmented context detect faults in 69% of real Python bugs versus 17.2% for general-purpose human-written tests, with similar coverage levels.

  7. "Like Taking the Path of Least Resistance": Exploring the Impact of LLM Interaction on the Creative Process of Programming

    cs.HC 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    LLM assistance shortens idea-generation periods and reduces creative moments during programming tasks while yielding solutions with comparable idea counts and greater functional correctness.

  8. A Causal Perspective on Measuring, Explaining and Mitigating Smells in LLM-Generated Code

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    A probabilistic score of code-smell propensity in LLM output is validated, used in a causal analysis, and shown to drop when prompts explicitly discourage known smells.