Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CodeCriticBench: A Holistic Code Critique Benchmark 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 2502.16614 v1 pith:BQKYUWFI submitted 2025-02-23 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords codecritiqueevaluationcodecriticbenchllmsdifferenttasksadvanced
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Rethinking Technology Stack Selection with AI Coding Proficiency

    cs.SE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI coding proficiency, a new measure of how effectively LLMs use a given library, reveals large quality gaps between competing Python libraries, with winners varying by model.

  2. CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A critic model trained with reinforcement learning judges semantic correctness of Lean 4 formalizations, and using it as a filter sharply improves autoformalization accuracy.

  3. Code Monitor Red Teaming for Public-Test-Passing Code

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Weak LLM verifiers miss most hidden bugs in public-test-passing code, and adversarial pressure makes that monitoring worse.

  4. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.

Pith tools