OOP: Object-Oriented Programming Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | None Large language models (LLMs) are emerging as a key tool for automated programming. |
| Approach: | They compare performance of None Large language models with language understanding models on functional programming and object-oriented programming benchmarks. |
| Outcome: | The models perform relatively well on functional programming (FP) and object-oriented programming (OOP) benchmarks, while exhibiting poor performance on OOP benchmarks. |
Similar Papers
PythonSaga: Redefining the Benchmark to Evaluate Code Generating LLMs (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | *HumanEval* and *MBPP* are two popular benchmarks for Python code generation. |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale human evaluation of two popular Python benchmarks . they propose 185 hand-crafted prompts in a balanced representation of 38 programming concepts across diverse difficulty levels. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show a critical bias towards a limited set of programming concepts, neglecting most of the other concepts entirely. |
The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Seungone Kim, Juyoung Suk, Ji Yong Cho, Shayne Longpre, Chaeeun Kim, Dongkeun Yoon, Guijin Son, Yejin Cho, Sheikh Shafayat, Jinheon Baek, Sue Hyun Park, Hyeonbin Hwang, Jinkyung Jo, Hyowon Cho, Haebin Shin, Seongyun Lee, Hanseok Oh, Noah Lee, Namgyu Ho, Se June Joo, Miyoung Ko, Yoonjoo Lee, Hyungjoo Chae, Jamin Shin, Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Bill Yuchen Lin, Sean Welleck, Graham Neubig, Moontae Lee, Kyungjae Lee, Minjoon Seo
| Challenge: | a recent study evaluated language models using abstract evaluation criteria that lack the flexibility and granularity of human assessment. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate nine distinct language models' capabilities . they use instance-specific evaluation criteria to mirror human evaluation . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates nine distinct capabilities of language models across 77 tasks. |
CODEMENV: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Code Migration (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Keyuan Cheng, Xudong Shen, Yihao Yang, TengyueWang TengyueWang, Yang Cao, Muhammad Asif Ali, Hanbin Wang, Lijie Hu, Di Wang
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in handling a wide range of tasks within the software engineering domain, but their ability to perform code migration—adapting code to different environments—remains underexplored. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate large language models’ performance in handling code migration tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark comprises 922 data points across 19 Python and Java packages and offers three tasks to systematically evaluate code migration: identifying version-incompatible functions, determining function changes, and adapting code to target environments. |
mHumanEval - A Multilingual Benchmark to Evaluate Large Language Models for Code Generation (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current evaluations focus on English-to-Python conversion tasks with limited test cases . code generation from low-resource language prompts remains largely unexplored . |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that supports prompts in over 200 natural languages . they provide expert human translations for 15 diverse natural languages (NLs) |
| Outcome: | The HumanEval Benchmark is the most widely used code generation benchmark . it provides expert human translations for 15 diverse natural languages . |
Evaluating Large Language Models with Enterprise Benchmarks (2025.naacl-industry)
Copied to clipboard
Bing Zhang, Mikio Takeuchi, Ryo Kawahara, Shubhi Asthana, Maruf Hossain, Guang-Jie Ren, Kate Soule, Yifan Mai, Yada Zhu
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks lack domain-specific datasets for evaluating large language models . existing benchmarks often lack domain specific datasets, which can be difficult to convert to standardized metrics or regulatory issues. |
| Approach: | They propose to use 25 publicly available domain-specific English benchmarks from diverse domains . they propose to combine a wide range of natural language processing tasks for holistic evaluation . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework includes 25 publicly available domain-specific English benchmarks from diverse enterprise domains like financial services, legal, climate, cyber security, and 2 public Japanese finance benchmarks. |
ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code (2024.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in the field of natural language generation have facilitated the use of large language models to assess the quality of generated text. |
| Approach: | They propose a new evaluation metric by instructing large language models for code assessments using a set of programming languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation, delivering high levels of accuracy and consistency across programming languages and tasks. |
HumanEval Pro and MBPP Pro: Evaluating Large Language Models on Self-invoking Code Generation Task (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for code generation tasks are inadequate, but performance declines on self-invoking tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a general recipe for generating more challenging versions of existing benchmarks . they propose to use instruction-tuned models to evaluate LLMs on self-invoking code generation tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on humanEval and MBPP but on self-invoking code generation tasks. |
GPT-Fathom: Benchmarking Large Language Models to Decipher the Evolutionary Path towards GPT-4 and Beyond (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing LLM leaderboards often reference scores reported in other papers without consistent settings and prompts, which may encourage cherry-picking favored settings and for better results. |
| Approach: | They propose an open-source and reproducible LLM evaluation suite built on top of OpenAI Evals that systematically evaluates 10+ leading LLMs and OpenAI’s legacy models on 20+ curated benchmarks across 7 capability categories. |
| Outcome: | The evaluation suite is built on top of OpenAI Evals and evaluates 10+ leading LLMs and OpenAI’s legacy models on 20+ curated benchmarks across 7 capability categories. |
LMentry: A Language Model Benchmark of Elementary Language Tasks (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models are evaluated via perplexity or performance on downstream tasks, but these benchmarks are too complex and difficult to inspect. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that focuses on 25 tasks that humans are expected to perform perfectly, such as writing a sentence containing a specific word or identifying which words in a list belong to a certain category. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that large language models are performing better than previous benchmarks. |
CodeScope: An Execution-based Multilingual Multitask Multidimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Code Understanding and Generation (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Weixiang Yan, Haitian Liu, Yunkun Wang, Yunzhe Li, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Tingyu Lin, Weishan Zhao, Li Zhu, Hari Sundaram, Shuiguang Deng
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for evaluating the code understanding and generation capacities of Large Language Models are insufficient . existing benchmarks focus on a narrow range of popular programming languages and specific tasks . |
| Approach: | They propose an execution-based, multilingual, multitask evaluation benchmark for LLMs . they evaluate coding performance from three dimensions: length, difficulty, efficiency . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark covers 43 programming languages and eight coding tasks. |