arXiv:2606. 10933v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based coding agents are usually evaluated in familiar software settings: mainstream languages, common libraries, and public repositories.
By Aman Sharma, Sushrut Thorat, Paras Chopra
arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
By Sayed Erfan Arefin
arXiv:2608. 03341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved code generation, yet achieving strong functional correctness remains difficult, especially for heterogeneous programming tasks where a single prompting strategy and a single directly generated output are often insufficient.
By Erxue Zhou, Jingxiang Meng, Aofan Liu
The paper introduces SWE-Flux, a repository‑level benchmark designed to test large language models’ ability to reason about runtime behavior. It contains 480 execution‑grounded instances from 12 real Python repositories, with gold answers automatically harvested from instrumented test executions. Evaluation of five LLMs shows the task remains difficult, with the best model achieving only 37% accuracy, and the benchmark can generate challenging variants through input perturbation.
By Hamed Taherkhani, Mohammad Abdollahi, Melika Sepidband, Hridya Dhulipala, Tien N. Nguyen, Hadi Hemmati
TestJack is a scalable framework that audits large language model (LLM) coding agents by generating new tests for each trial, focusing on prompt requirements that may be violated. It keeps only the tests passed by the ground‑truth patch and re‑examines failures, providing replayable evidence for each confirmed error. In experiments across six model backends and five benchmarks, TestJack found that 34.4% of trials deemed correct actually violated task requirements, reducing the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%.
By Shuangjie Yao, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Simin Chen, Baishakhi Ray, Dawn Song
arXiv:2606. 00920v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Run-level pass rate overstates retry-free coverage by up to 17.
By Yongxi Zhou, Lai Yun Choi, Jiaxi Wen, Wenbo Ye
The paper investigates how token consumption varies across programming languages for coding agents. Five recent models were evaluated on Python, Java, Rust, and OCaml, revealing significant differences in token usage that persist across models. Analysis of agent trajectories shows that agents often generate non‑compiling solutions in unfamiliar languages, revise passing solutions, plan in code comments, distrust provided tests, and prototype in Python to sidestep unfamiliar languages.
By Zixuan Wu, Carolyn Jane Anderson, Arjun Guha
arXiv:2609.21190v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Ensuring the correctness of LLM-generated code is a core challenge for modern software engineering. Benchmarks for agentic code generation check corr...
By George Ma, Benjamin Mikek, Haoyu Li, Ferhat Erata, Yuhao Zhang, Zeren Shui, Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani, Jun Huan, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Somayeh Sojoudi, Hao Zhou, Anoop Deoras
arXiv:2607. 07748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models achieve strong code generation for high resource languages like Python and Java but suffer sharp performance drops on Low-Resource Programming Languages~(LRPLs) such as Julia.
By Didula Samaraweera, Anjana Supun, Srinath Perera
The paper introduces OMVV, an online multi-verifier algorithm that maintains a pool of weak verifiers with varying costs and performance. It adaptively selects a verifier each round using an online score combiner and exponential-weights routing, providing distribution-free guarantees on false-accept and false-reject rates. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks show OMVV achieves higher accuracy at lower verification cost than any single fixed verifier across different budgets.
By Erfan Hajihashemi, Yanning Shen
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
By Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu
arXiv:2512. 03086v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in code translation, yet their performance deteriorates in low-resource programming domains such as Fortran and emerging frameworks like CUDA, where high-quality parallel data are scarce.
By Le Chen, Nuo Xu, Winson Chen, Bin Lei, Pei-Hung Lin, Dunzhi Zhou, Rajeev Thakur, Caiwen Ding, Ali Jannesari, Chunhua Liao