# An evaluation of LLM code generation capabilities through graded exercises

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16292 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16292/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 57 of its 82 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 57)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03654/) (2020)
- [BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05100/) (2022)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Reflecting Process Expertise in Procedural Material Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.13318/) (2026)
- [Lifecycle-Aware code generation: Leveraging Software Engineering Phases in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.24019/) (2025)
- [Holistic Evaluation of State-of-the-Art LLMs for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18131/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models have shown prominent capabilities in generating functional code from natural language descriptions. However, a standardized way to evaluate these capabilities in an objective and unbiased manner is still to be found. In this paper we review the current evaluation methods available to this end, and run a new evaluation of the performance of one state-of-the-art model (GPT4-o-mini) in solving curated coding challenges in 8 programming languages, obtained from Codewars, a software development community. Our analysis shows that the chance of success of the model has a positive correlation with the task difficulty, the popularity of the programming language being used and the time elapsed since the publication of the challenge. A further approximate explanatory analysis in terms of high-level features hints that while 46.6% of the model performance could be attributed to task difficulty, a 37.4% seems to be related to leakage of the challenge solutions into the model training set, while the remaining 16% depends on the programming language. These results suggest that current evaluation methodologies might be overestimating the actual skill of Large Language Models for generating functional code.