arXiv:2606. 28998v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) alignment trains an LLM using preference data to produce outputs that better meet established quality standards.
arXiv:2605. 00754v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reward models (RMs) have become an indispensable fixture of the language model (LM) post-training playbook, enabling policy alignment and test-time scaling.
arXiv:2510. 07315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check.
arXiv:2503. 09020v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in commercial code completion engines, significantly enhancing coding efficiency and productivity.
arXiv:2607. 18642v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mined code corpora are abundant but uncontrolled: a snippet's semantics, surface "messiness," and difficulty are whatever the wild contained; there is no known-optimal reference to grade against; and any public sample may already sit in a model's training set.
arXiv:2606. 01286v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid progress of frontier large language models has led to widespread benchmark saturation, limiting the ability of existing datasets to differentiate model capabilities or provide useful training signal.
arXiv:2603. 14501v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models excel in high-resource programming languages but struggle with low-resource ones.
The paper introduces PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in C++, Java, and Python, to test whether large language models can judge functional equivalence across languages. Using this dataset, the authors evaluate several open-weight and proprietary LLMs, finding that models struggle more with harder problems, show language-specific biases, and rely partly on superficial similarity cues. They also observe run‑to‑run instability in GPT‑o4‑mini, concluding that current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across programming languages.
arXiv:2608.21074v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research workflows and software development pipelines, yet their output remains sensitive to in...
arXiv:2607. 06125v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural decompilation is increasingly studied as a code-generation problem, yet its evaluation methodology remains underdeveloped for modern languages.
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.
arXiv:2601. 03808v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable performance in code synthesis; however, data-aware augmentation remains a limiting factor, handled via heuristic design or brute-force approaches.
arXiv:2607. 07881v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, but they struggle to generate functional code free of security vulnerabilities.