Pith. sign in

REVIEW 21 cited by

A Survey on Evaluating Large Language Models in Code Generation Tasks

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 2408.16498 v2 pith:7GGXCLG6 submitted 2024-08-29 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords codegenerationllmsmethodsmetricstasksdevelopmentevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current methods and metrics used to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation tasks. With the rapid growth in demand for automated software development, LLMs have demonstrated significant potential in the field of code generation. The paper begins by reviewing the historical development of LLMs and their applications in code generation. Next, it details various methods and metrics for assessing the code generation capabilities of LLMs, including code correctness, efficiency, readability, and evaluation methods based on expert review and user experience. The paper also evaluates the widely used benchmark datasets, identifying their limitations and proposing directions for future improvements. Specifically, the paper analyzes the performance of code generation models across different tasks by combining multiple evaluation metrics, such as code compilation/interpretation success rates, unit test pass rates, and performance and efficiency metrics, to comprehensively assess the practical application of LLMs in code generation. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges faced in evaluating LLMs in code generation, particularly how to ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of evaluation methods and how to adapt to the evolving practices of software development. These analyses and discussions provide valuable insights for further optimizing and improving the application of LLMs in code generation tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

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

  1. Evaluating LLM-Based 0-to-1 Software Generation in End-to-End CLI Tool Scenarios

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark for 0-to-1 CLI tool generation shows state-of-the-art LLMs achieve under 43% success rate with black-box equivalence testing against real oracles.

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

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    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.

  3. Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prompt language affects LLM code generation, but English is not consistently best: Chinese prompts improve Python correctness on CoderEval, while quality and lexicon effects vary by model and programming language.

  4. Effectiveness of LLM-based Software Diversity for Reliability Improvement -- an Empirical Study

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-generated programs, especially when paired across languages or with human code, produce measurable 1-out-of-2 reliability gains under classical software-diversity analysis on three programming-contest specifications.

  5. 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.

  6. A Hierarchical and Evolvable Benchmark for Fine-Grained Code Instruction Following with Multi-Turn Feedback

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MultiCodeIF introduces a 2,021-task, 14-language benchmark with 27 constraint types to evaluate code instruction following, finding that multi-level constraints sharply reduce model success and iterative feedback subs...

  7. LLM-based Satisfiability Checking of String Requirements by Consistent Data and Checker Generation

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM-based system that generates SMT and Python checkers from natural-language string requirements and uses them with feedback to verify satisfiability improves accuracy over direct LLM generation.

  8. WebUIBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models in WebUI-to-Code

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WebUIBench is a 21,793-question benchmark that splits WebUI-to-Code into perception, HTML programming, and cross-modal understanding, and it ranks 29 multimodal LLMs on each sub-skill.

  9. MARCO: Meta-Reflection with Cross-Referencing for Code Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MARCO combines cross-problem knowledge accumulation with cross-agent lesson sharing to improve LLM code reasoning at inference time.

  10. AutoGEEval: A Multimodal and Automated Framework for Geospatial Code Generation on GEE with Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An automated, execution-based benchmark of 1,325 Google Earth Engine unit tests shows 18 LLMs scoring between 31.40% and 71.55% pass@1, with parameter-knowledge errors the dominant failure mode.

  11. LLM-Supported Natural Language to Bash Translation

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New 600-pair verified NL2SH test set and an execution-plus-LLM equivalence checker improve Bash-command translation evaluation; parsing and in-context learning give the largest gains for small models.

  12. Studying How Configurations Impact Code Generation in LLMs: the Case of ChatGPT

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A large empirical study of GPT-4o shows that top-p affects Java method generation more than temperature, and that low temperature reduces the number of methods for which a correct implementation is found across repeat...

  13. CIgrate: Automating CI Service Migration with Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract reports that a fine-tuned Gemma 3 12B outperforms the rule-based CIMig tool on Travis-to-GitHub Actions CI migration, but the manuscript body contains only a planned study with no experimental results.

  14. Improving Existing Optimization Algorithms with LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A GPT-4o-proposed age-aware heuristic for the CMSA metaheuristic outperforms the expert degree-based heuristic on Maximum Independent Set instances across three graph families.

  15. Large Language Models for Code Generation: The Practitioners Perspective

    cs.SE 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a practitioner survey with a reported 60 respondents, GPT-4o ranked as the best model for code generation and GPT-3.5 Turbo as the worst.

  16. Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models at Ericsson: An Experience Report

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A lightweight LLM-based code review tool using enclosing-method context from static analysis received encouraging but mixed feedback from Ericsson developers.

  17. Evaluation of Large Language Model-Driven AutoML in Data and Model Management from Human-Centered Perspective

    cs.HC 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A 15-participant within-subjects study claims LLM-driven AutoML outperforms traditional AutoML on speed, accuracy, and usability, though supporting data are not provided and several numbers conflict.

  18. Assessing and Enhancing the Robustness of LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems Through Chaos Engineering

    cs.MA 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes, but does not implement or validate, a chaos engineering framework for improving the robustness of LLM-based multi-agent systems.

  19. The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured survey of LLM safety evaluation that proposes a why/what/where/how taxonomy and catalogs metrics, datasets, benchmarks, evaluators, and frameworks.

  20. Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A qualitative taxonomy positions vibe coding and agentic coding as complementary paradigms rather than rivals in AI-assisted software development.

  21. Engineering Trustworthy Software: A Mission for LLMs

    cs.SE 2024-11 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A position paper that calls for integrating LLMs across the software lifecycle to build trustworthy software and outlines the challenges that must be solved first.

Pith tools