Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can Language Models Replace Programmers for Coding? REPOCOD Says 'Not Yet'

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 2410.21647 v4 pith:ALJ524OC submitted 2024-10-29 cs.SE cs.CL

classification cs.SEcs.CL
keywords repocodllmstasksbenchmarkscodinggenerationreal-worldachieves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently, a number of repository-level code generation benchmarks-such as CoderEval, DevEval, RepoEval, RepoBench, and LongCodeArena-have emerged to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) beyond standalone benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, would LLMs have similar performance in real world coding tasks as their performance in these benchmarks? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question, since these benchmarks consist of short completions, synthetic examples, or focus on limited scale repositories, failing to represent real-world coding tasks. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a Python code-generation benchmark containing complex tasks with realistic dependencies in real-world large projects and appropriate metrics for evaluating source code. It includes 980 whole-function generation tasks from 11 popular projects, 50.8% of which require repository-level context. REPOCOD includes 314 developer-written test cases per instance for better evaluation. We evaluate ten LLMs on REPOCOD and find that none achieves more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. In addition, we found that retrieval-augmented generation achieves better results than using target function dependencies as context.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Evaluating AGENTS.md: Are Repository-Level Context Files Helpful for Coding Agents?

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Repository-level context files such as AGENTS.md do not generally improve coding-agent task success rates and increase inference cost by over 20% on average.

  2. LLM Code Customization with Visual Results: A Benchmark on TikZ

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    vTikZ, a 100-task benchmark for visual code customization, shows LLMs solve at most 28 percent of TikZ editing scenarios even with best-of-five sampling.

Pith tools