Context: Open-source Pre-Trained Models (PTMs) provide extensive resources for various Machine Learning (ML) tasks, yet these resources lack a classification tailored to Software Engineering (SE). Objective: To address this gap, we derive a taxonomy encompassing 146 SE tasks and apply an SE-oriented classification to PTMs in a popular open-source ML repository, Hugging Face (HF). Method: Our repository mining study followed a five-phase pipeline: (i) identification of SE tasks from the literature; (ii) collection of PTM data from the HF API, including model card descriptions and metadata, and the abstracts of the associated arXiv papers; (iii) text processing to ensure consistency; (iv) a two-phase validation of SE relevance, involving humans and LLM assistance, supported by five pilot studies with human annotators and a generalization test; and (v) data analysis. This process yielded a curated catalogue of 5,027 SE PTMs. Results: We find that most SE PTMs target code generation and coding, emphasizing implementation over early or late development stages. In terms of ML tasks, text generation dominates within SE PTMs. Notably, the number of SE PTMs has increased markedly since 2023 Q2, while benchmarking remains limited: only 5.55\% of all SE PTMs in our catalogue provide evaluation results. Conclusions: Our catalogue reveals documentation and transparency gaps, highlights SE activity imbalances, and supports automated SE scenarios, such as the selection of suitable PTMs.
Verifiers provide important reward signals for reinforcement learning of large language models (LLMs). However, it is challenging to develop or create reliable verifiers, especially for code generation tasks. A well-disguised wrong solution program may only be detected by carefully human-written edge cases that are difficult to synthesize automatically. To address this issue, we propose HARDTESTGEN, an approach to synthesize high-quality test cases for algorithmic coding problems. We curate a comprehensive algorithmic programming dataset HARDTESTS with 26.6k problems and high-quality synthetic tests. Compared with existing tests, HARDTESTGEN tests demonstrate significantly higher accuracy in verifying LLM-generated code (+11.22 percentage points in precision, the percentage of actually correct code within the predicted correct ones). We also show that downstream post-training -- including rejection sampling and reinforcement learning (RL) -- using HARDTESTS verifier results in improved performance of LLM code generation. We open-source our dataset and synthesis pipeline at https://leililab.github.io/HardTests/.
Automated code generation is gaining significant importance in intelligent computer programming and system deployment. However, current approaches often face challenges in computational efficiency and lack robust mechanisms for code parsing and error correction. In this work, we propose a novel framework, PyCapsule, with a simple yet effective two-agent pipeline and efficient self-debugging modules for Python code generation. PyCapsule features sophisticated prompt inference, iterative error handling, and case testing, ensuring high generation stability, safety, and correctness. Empirically, PyCapsule achieves up to 5.7% improvement in success rate on HumanEval, 14.6% on HumanEval-ET, and up to 24.5% on BigCodeBench compared to state-of-the-art methods. Notably, PyCapsule enables the open-source Qwen2.5-Coder-Instruct 7B model to surpass the standalone performance of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 on HumanEval and MBPP while requiring an average of fewer than 2 API calls per problem compared to up to 17 in competing frameworks. PyCapsule demonstrates broader impacts on advancing lightweight and efficient code generation, making competitive automated programming attainable with cost-effective, locally deployable open-source models.
The hallucination of code generation models hinders their applicability to systems requiring higher safety standards. One critical bottleneck in addressing code hallucination is the difficulty of identifying the functional correctness of generated code, due to its unnatural form. We address this core bottleneck by automatically generating unit tests using dynamic code analysis tools, leveraging the \emph{executable nature} of code. Accordingly, we propose a \emph{selective code generator} that abstains from uncertain generations -- based on the functional correctness evaluated by generated unit tests -- to theoretically control the correctness among non-abstained answers, \ie the false discovery rate. Finally, we propose to use generated unit tests in evaluation as well as in learning for precise code evaluation, calling this paradigm \emph{FuzzEval}. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method along with the controllability of code hallucination and reasonable selection efficiency.
Recent advancements in reasoning-focused language models such as OpenAI's O1 and DeepSeek-R1 have shown that scaling test-time computation-through chain-of-thought reasoning and iterative exploration-can yield substantial improvements on complex tasks like mathematics and code generation. These breakthroughs have been driven by large-scale reinforcement learning (RL), particularly when combined with verifiable reward signals that provide objective and grounded supervision. In this report, we investigate the effects of prolonged reinforcement learning on a small language model across a diverse set of reasoning domains. Our work identifies several key ingredients for effective training, including the use of verifiable reward tasks, enhancements to Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and practical techniques to improve training stability and generalization. We introduce controlled KL regularization, clipping ratio, and periodic reference policy resets as critical components for unlocking long-term performance gains. Our model achieves significant improvements over strong baselines, including +14.7% on math, +13.9% on coding, and +54.8% on logic puzzle tasks. To facilitate continued research, we release our model publicly.
The exponential growth in demand for GPU computing resources, driven by the rapid advancement of Large Language Models, has created an urgent need for automated CUDA optimization strategies. While recent advances in LLMs show promise for code generation, current SOTA models (e.g. R1, o1) achieve low success rates in improving CUDA speed. In this paper, we introduce CUDA-L1, an automated reinforcement learning framework for CUDA optimization. CUDA-L1 achieves performance improvements on the CUDA optimization task: trained on NVIDIA A100, it delivers an average speedup of x17.7 across all 250 CUDA kernels of KernelBench, with peak speedups reaching x449. Furthermore, the model also demonstrates excellent portability across GPU architectures, achieving average speedups of x17.8 on H100, x19.0 on RTX 3090, x16.5 on L40, x14.7 on H800, and x13.9 on H20 despite being optimized specifically for A100. Beyond these benchmark results, CUDA-L1 demonstrates several remarkable properties: 1) Discovers a variety of CUDA optimization techniques and learns to combine them strategically to achieve optimal performance; 2) Uncovers fundamental principles of CUDA optimization; 3) Identifies non-obvious performance bottlenecks and rejects seemingly beneficial optimizations that harm performance. The capabilities of CUDA-L1 demonstrate that reinforcement learning can transform an initially poor-performing LLM into an effective CUDA optimizer through speedup-based reward signals alone, without human expertise or domain knowledge. More importantly, the trained RL model extend the acquired reasoning abilities to new kernels. This paradigm opens possibilities for automated optimization of CUDA operations, and holds promise to substantially promote GPU efficiency and alleviate the rising pressure on GPU computing resources.
In the past few years LLMs have emerged as a tool that can aid programmers by taking natural language descriptions and generating code based on it. However, LLMs often generate incorrect code that users need to fix and the literature suggests users often struggle to detect these errors. In this work we seek to offer formal guarantees of correctness to LLM generated code; such guarantees could improve the experience of using AI Code Assistants and potentially enable natural language programming for users with little or no programming knowledge. To address this challenge we propose to incorporate a formal query language that can represent a user's intent in a formally defined but natural language-like manner that a user can confirm matches their intent. Then, using such a query we propose to verify LLM generated code to ensure it matches the user's intent. We implement these ideas in our system, Astrogator, for the Ansible programming language which includes such a formal query language, a calculus for representing the behavior of Ansible programs, and a symbolic interpreter which is used for the verification. On a benchmark suite of 21 code-generation tasks, our verifier is able to verify correct code in 83% of cases and identify incorrect code in 92%.
Advancements in LLMs have enhanced task automation in software engineering; however, current evaluations primarily focus on natural language tasks, overlooking code quality. Most benchmarks prioritize high-level reasoning over executable code and real-world performance, leaving gaps in understanding true capabilities and risks associated with these models in production. To address this issue, we propose MERA Code, a new addition to the MERA benchmark family, specifically focused on evaluating code for the latest code generation LLMs in Russian. This benchmark includes 11 evaluation tasks that span 8 programming languages. Our proposed evaluation methodology features a taxonomy that outlines the practical coding skills necessary for models to complete these tasks. The benchmark comprises an open-source codebase for users to conduct MERA assessments, a scoring system compatible with various programming environments, and a platform featuring a leaderboard and submission system. We evaluate open LLMs and frontier API models, analyzing their limitations in terms of practical coding tasks in non-English languages. We are publicly releasing MERA to guide future research, anticipate groundbreaking features in model development, and standardize evaluation procedures.
Programming assistants powered by large language models have transformed software development, yet most benchmarks focus narrowly on code generation tasks. Recent efforts like InfiBench and StackEval attempt to address this gap using Stack Overflow data but remain limited to single-turn interactions in isolated contexts, require significant manual curation, and fail to represent complete project environments. We introduce CodeAssistBench (CAB), the first benchmark framework for evaluating multi-turn programming assistance in realistic settings that address real-world questions about actual codebases. Unlike existing programming Q&A benchmarks, CAB automatically generates scalable datasets from question-related GitHub issues using configurable parameters (e.g., repository creation date, star count, programming languages), and includes automatic containerization of codebases for evaluation. It then evaluates models through simulated users in these containerized environments with full codebase access. Using this framework, we constructed a test set of 3,286 real-world programming questions across 231 repositories, spanning seven programming languages and diverse problem domains. Our evaluation of leading LLMs reveals a substantial capability gap: while models perform well on Stack Overflow questions with success rates of 70-83%, they resolve only up to 16.49% of CAB's recent issues. This discrepancy highlights the challenges of providing assistance in complex, project-specific contexts versus answering standalone questions.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks. Beyond directly answering user queries, LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models. Such an evaluation capability is crucial both for benchmarking different LLMs and for improving response quality through response ranking. However, despite the growing adoption of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, its effectiveness in coding scenarios remains underexplored due to the absence of dedicated benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce CodeJudgeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge models across three critical coding tasks: code generation, code repair, and unit test generation. Through comprehensive benchmarking of 26 LLM-as-a-Judge models, we find that recent thinking models significantly outperform non-thinking models on our carefully designed code judging tasks. Notably, even relatively small thinking models, such as Qwen3-8B, can outperform specially trained LLM-as-a-Judge models up to 70B in size. Nevertheless, all models still exhibit significant randomness in their judgment of coding tasks. For pairwise judging tasks, simply changing the order in which responses are presented can substantially impact accuracy. In addition, when judging code and unit tests written by different LLMs, LLM-as-a-Judge models also show variance in performance. This sensitivity raises concerns about the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge in coding scenarios. Lastly, we study optimal prompting strategies for LLM-as-a-Judge. We find that using pair-wise comparison outperforms scalar point-wise judging. Furthermore, retaining comments and reasoning in the full, unprocessed LLM response leads to improved judge performance.
Code large language models (LLMs) enhance programming by understanding and generating code across languages, offering intelligent feedback, bug detection, and code updates through reflection, improving development efficiency and accessibility. While benchmarks (e.g. HumanEval/LiveCodeBench) evaluate code generation and real-world relevance, previous works ignore the scenario of modifying code in repositories. Considering challenges remaining in improving reflection capabilities and avoiding data contamination in dynamic benchmarks, we introduce LiveRepoReflection, a challenging benchmark for evaluating code understanding and generation in multi-file repository contexts, featuring 1,888 rigorously filtered test cases across $6$ programming languages to ensure diversity, correctness, and high difficulty. Further, we create RepoReflection-Instruct, a large-scale, quality-filtered instruction-tuning dataset derived from diverse sources, used to train RepoReflectionCoder through a two-turn dialogue process involving code generation and error-driven repair. The leaderboard evaluates over 40 LLMs to reflect the model performance of repository-based code reflection.
Recent advancements in reasoning-based Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly their potential through test-time scaling, have created significant opportunities for distillation in code generation and critique. However, progress in both areas fundamentally depends on large-scale, high-quality datasets. In this work, we introduce OpenCodeReasoning-II, a dataset consists of 2.5M question-solution-critique triples (approx. 35K unique programming questions), making it nearly twice the size of the previous largest publicly available code reasoning dataset. In this work, we employ a two-stage supervised fine-tuning strategy. The first stage focuses on fine-tuning for code generation, while the second stage involves the joint training of models for both code generation and critique. Our resulting finetuned Qwen2.5-Instruct models achieve performance in code generation that either exceeds or equals the best prior open-weight distilled models. Notably, the integration of our code generation and critique models leads to significant improvements in competitive coding performance. Furthermore, we present an extension of the LiveCodeBench benchmark to specifically support the C++ programming language, thereby facilitating more comprehensive LLM evaluation using this benchmark.
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly improved code generation, yet most models remain text-only, neglecting crucial visual aids like diagrams and flowcharts used in real-world software development. To bridge this gap, we introduce MM-Coder, a Multilingual Multimodal software developer. MM-Coder integrates visual design inputs-Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams and flowcharts (termed Visual Workflow)-with textual instructions to enhance code generation accuracy and architectural alignment. To enable this, we developed MMc-Instruct, a diverse multimodal instruction-tuning dataset including visual-workflow-based code generation, allowing MM-Coder to synthesize textual and graphical information like human developers, distinct from prior work on narrow tasks. Furthermore, we introduce MMEval, a new benchmark for evaluating multimodal code generation, addressing existing text-only limitations. Our evaluations using MMEval highlight significant remaining challenges for models in precise visual information capture, instruction following, and advanced programming knowledge. Our work aims to revolutionize industrial programming by enabling LLMs to interpret and implement complex specifications conveyed through both text and visual designs.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced code generation and software automation, but are fundamentally constrained by limited inference-time context and lack of explicit code structure reasoning. We introduce Kodezi Chronos, a next-generation architecture for autonomous code understanding, debugging, and maintenance, designed to operate across ultra-long contexts comprising entire codebases, histories, and documentation, all without fixed window limits. Kodezi Chronos leverages a multi-level embedding memory engine, combining vector and graph-based indexing with continuous code-aware retrieval. This enables efficient and accurate reasoning over millions of lines of code, supporting repository-scale comprehension, multi-file refactoring, and real-time self-healing actions. Our evaluation introduces a novel Multi Random Retrieval benchmark, specifically tailored to the software engineering domain. Unlike classical retrieval benchmarks, this method requires the model to resolve arbitrarily distant and obfuscated associations across code artifacts, simulating realistic tasks such as variable tracing, dependency migration, and semantic bug localization. Chronos outperforms prior LLMs and code models, demonstrating a 23% improvement in real-world bug detection and reducing debugging cycles by up to 40% compared to traditional sequence-based approaches. By natively interfacing with IDEs and CI/CD workflows, Chronos enables seamless, autonomous software maintenance, elevating code reliability and productivity while reducing manual effort. These results mark a critical advance toward self-sustaining, continuously optimized software ecosystems.
Diffusion-based large language models (dLLMs) have recently emerged as a powerful alternative to autoregressive LLMs, offering faster inference and greater interactivity via parallel decoding and bidirectional modeling. However, despite strong performance in code generation and text infilling, we identify a fundamental safety concern: existing alignment mechanisms fail to safeguard dLLMs against context-aware, masked-input adversarial prompts, exposing novel vulnerabilities. To this end, we present DIJA, the first systematic study and jailbreak attack framework that exploits unique safety weaknesses of dLLMs. Specifically, our proposed DIJA constructs adversarial interleaved mask-text prompts that exploit the text generation mechanisms of dLLMs, i.e., bidirectional modeling and parallel decoding. Bidirectional modeling drives the model to produce contextually consistent outputs for masked spans, even when harmful, while parallel decoding limits model dynamic filtering and rejection sampling of unsafe content. This causes standard alignment mechanisms to fail, enabling harmful completions in alignment-tuned dLLMs, even when harmful behaviors or unsafe instructions are directly exposed in the prompt. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that DIJA significantly outperforms existing jailbreak methods, exposing a previously overlooked threat surface in dLLM architectures. Notably, our method achieves up to 100% keyword-based ASR on Dream-Instruct, surpassing the strongest prior baseline, ReNeLLM, by up to 78.5% in evaluator-based ASR on JailbreakBench and by 37.7 points in StrongREJECT score, while requiring no rewriting or hiding of harmful content in the jailbreak prompt. Our findings underscore the urgent need for rethinking safety alignment in this emerging class of language models. Code is available at https://github.com/ZichenWen1/DIJA.
Large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved notable success in code-generation benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench. However, a detailed examination reveals that these evaluation suites often comprise only a limited number of homogeneous test cases, resulting in subtle faults going undetected. This not only artificially inflates measured performance but also compromises accurate reward estimation in reinforcement learning frameworks utilizing verifiable rewards (RLVR). To address these critical shortcomings, we systematically investigate the test-case generation (TCG) task by proposing multi-dimensional metrics designed to rigorously quantify test-suite thoroughness. Furthermore, we introduce a human-LLM collaborative method (SAGA), leveraging human programming expertise with LLM reasoning capability, aimed at significantly enhancing both the coverage and the quality of generated test cases. In addition, we develop a TCGBench to facilitate the study of the TCG task. Experiments show that SAGA achieves a detection rate of 90.62% and a verifier accuracy of 32.58% on TCGBench. The Verifier Accuracy (Verifier Acc) of the code generation evaluation benchmark synthesized by SAGA is 10.78% higher than that of LiveCodeBench-v6. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. We hope this work contributes to building a scalable foundation for reliable LLM code evaluation, further advancing RLVR in code generation, and paving the way for automated adversarial test synthesis and adaptive benchmark integration.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate increasingly sophisticated code processing capabilities, evaluating their performance on engineering-level code remains challenging. Existing repository-level benchmarks primarily focus on single scenarios, such as code generation or bug fixing, without adequately capturing the diversity and complexity of real-world software or project engineering workflows. Furthermore, these benchmarks suffer from limited controllability in question positioning and reliability issues in their generated test cases. To address these limitations, we present CorePipe, a fully automated pipeline that converts repositories into comprehensive test cases, and introduce CoreCodeBench, a configurable multi-scenario repository-level benchmark. To simulate real engineering scenarios, CorePipe generates three types of atomic questions (Development, BugFix, and Test-Driven Development) specifically targeting core code segments. These atomic questions are further combined into three types of composite questions, with difficulty levels flexibly adjusted through hyperparameter tuning. CoreCodeBench provides a comprehensive and extensive repository-level benchmark to investigate the applicability of LLMs in real-world engineering projects. Experiments with 16 LLMs across diverse scenarios reveal varying capabilities and offer multi-dimensional insights into LLM performance in engineering contexts. The code for CorePipe is available at https://github.com/AGI-Eval-Official/CoreCodeBench, and the data for CoreCodeBench can be accessed at https://huggingface.co/collections/tubehhh/corecodebench-68256d2faabf4b1610a08caa.
The generative capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly expanding from static code to dynamic, interactive visual artifacts. This progress is bottlenecked by a critical evaluation gap: established benchmarks focus on algorithmic correctness and are blind to the visual fidelity and interactive integrity that define modern user experiences. To bridge this gap, we introduce ArtifactsBench, a new benchmark and paradigm for the automated, multimodal evaluation of visual code generation. Our framework programmatically renders each generated artifact and captures its dynamic behavior through temporal screenshots. This visual evidence, alongside the source code, is then assessed by a Multimodal LLM (MLLM)-as-Judge, which is rigorously guided by a fine-grained, per-task checklist to ensure holistic and reproducible scoring. We construct a new benchmark of 1,825 diverse tasks and evaluate over 30 leading LLMs. Our automated evaluation achieves a striking 94.4% ranking consistency with WebDev Arena, the gold-standard for human preference in web development, and over 90% pairwise agreement with human experts. This establishes ArtifactsBench as the first framework to reliably automate the assessment of human-perceived quality at scale. Our analysis provides a high-resolution map of the current SOTA, revealing that generalist models often outperform domain-specific ones. We open-source ArtifactsBench, including the benchmark, evaluation harness, and baseline results at https://artifactsbenchmark.github.io/, to provide the community with a scalable and accurate tool to accelerate the development of user-centric generative models.
Generating code from natural language specifications is one of the most successful applications of Large Language Models (LLMs). Yet, they hallucinate: LLMs produce outputs that may be grammatically correct but are factually incorrect. Without an existing, correct implementation (i.e., an oracle), can we quantify how likely the generated program is correct? In this paper, we propose a measure of incorrectness, called incoherence, that can be estimated efficiently in the absence of an oracle and provides a lower bound on the error, i.e., the probability that the LLM-generated program for that specification is incorrect. Our experiments demonstrate an extraordinary effectiveness. For the average code generation task, our incoherence-based methodology can automatically identify about two-thirds of incorrect programs without reports of false positives. In fact, an oracle-based evaluation of LLMs can be reliably replaced by an incoherence-based evaluation. In particular, we find a very strong agreement between the ranking of LLMs by the number of programs deemed correct via an oracle (pass@1) and the ranking of LLMs by the number of programs deemed correct via our incoherence.
Molecular dynamics simulations are an essential tool in understanding protein structure, dynamics, and function at the atomic level. However, preparing high quality input files for MD simulations can be a time consuming and error prone process. In this work, we introduce an automated pipeline that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Gemini 2.0 Flash, in conjunction with python scripting and Selenium based web automation to streamline the generation of MD input files. The pipeline exploits CHARMM GUI's comprehensive web-based interface for preparing simulation-ready inputs for NAMD. By integrating Gemini's code generation and iterative refinement capabilities, simulation scripts are automatically written, executed, and revised to navigate CHARMM GUI, extract appropriate parameters, and produce the required NAMD input files. Post processing is performed using additional software to further refine the simulation outputs, thereby enabling a complete and largely hands free workflow. Our results demonstrate that this approach reduces setup time, minimizes manual errors, and offers a scalable solution for handling multiple protein systems in parallel. This automated framework paves the way for broader application of LLMs in computational structural biology, offering a robust and adaptable platform for future developments in simulation automation.