# Beyond Correctness: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Code Generation for Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11470 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11470/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 38 of its 56 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 38)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00859/) (2021)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [CodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13474/) (2022)
- [StarCoder: may the source be with you!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06161/) (2023)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.15004/) (2023)
- [StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19173/) (2024)
- [InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05999/) (2022)
- [DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11501/) (2022)
- [A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models of Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.13169/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the Barrier of Closed-Source Models in Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11931/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03533/) (2023)
- [ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01861/) (2023)
- [TACO: Topics in Algorithmic COde generation dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14852/) (2023)
- [DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04621/) (2024)
- [Towards an Understanding of Large Language Models in Software Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11396/) (2023)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models for Code: Evolution, Benchmarking, and Future Trends](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10372/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04811/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17501/) (2024)
- [Speed at the Cost of Quality: How Cursor AI Increases Short-Term Velocity and Long-Term Complexity in Open-Source Projects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04427/) (2025)
- [MaintainCoder: Maintainable Code Generation Under Dynamic Requirements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24260/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16062/) (2025)
- [OSS-Bench: Benchmark Generator for Coding LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12331/) (2025)
- [From Correctness to Collaboration: Toward a Human-Centered Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Behavior in Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23844/) (2025)
- [TimeMachine-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Model Capabilities in Repository-Level Migration Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22597/) (2026)
- [Needle in the Repo: A Benchmark for Maintainability in AI-Generated Repository Edits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.27745/) (2026)
- [Do AI Models Dream of Faster Code? An Empirical Study on LLM-Proposed Performance Improvements in Real-World Software](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15494/) (2025)
- [daVinci-LLM:Towards the Science of Pretraining](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.27164/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, researchers have proposed numerous benchmarks to evaluate the impressive coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, current benchmarks primarily assess the accuracy of LLM-generated code, while neglecting other critical dimensions that also significantly impact code quality in real-world development. Moreover, relying exclusively on correctness as the guiding metric renders LLMs susceptible to data contamination. Therefore, this paper proposes the RACE benchmark, which comprehensively evaluates the quality of code generated by LLMs across 4 dimensions: Readability, mAintainability, Correctness, and Efficiency. Specifically, considering the demand-dependent nature of dimensions beyond correctness, we design various types of user requirements for each dimension to assess the model's ability to generate correct code that also meets user demands. We analyze 28 representative LLMs based on RACE and find that: 1) current correctness-centric benchmarks fail to capture the multifaceted requirements of code in real-world scenarios, while RACE provides a comprehensive evaluation that reveals the defects of LLMs across multiple dimensions; 2) the RACE benchmark serves as an effective tool for resisting the risk of data contamination; 3) even the most advanced code LLMs still encounter significant challenges in customized requirements involving complex instructions; 4) most LLMs exhibit an inherent preference for specific coding style. These findings highlight the need for a multidimensional evaluation of code LLMs, emphasizing metrics beyond correctness for real-world applications. Future efforts should aim to develop novel learning algorithms to enhance code generation under varied constraints and improve coverage and usability for diverse user needs.