# Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Software Engineering Tasks: A Multi-Task Benchmark

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07079 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.07079/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12793/) (2024)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03091/) (2023)
- [ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01861/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Agentic Frameworks for Reasoning Tasks: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16646/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in software engineering, yet comprehensive benchmarks covering diverse SE activities remain limited. We present a multi-task evaluation of 11 state-of-the-art LLMs across five representative software engineering tasks: bug fixing, feature development, code refactoring, technical copywriting, and research synthesis. Our automated verification framework measures both output quality and completion efficiency. Key findings reveal that (1) models achieving identical perfect scores exhibit 22x variation in completion time, 49x variation in tool efficiency, and 53x variation in estimated cost; (2) tool usage frequency shows no correlation with success (r = 0.077, p = 0.575) - one model used 917 tool calls while another solved the same task with 3 calls; (3) we identify two distinct inefficiency patterns: loop inefficiency and inference inefficiency; and (4) coding tasks achieve 100 percent success while research tasks present greater challenges (90.9 percent). We release all experimental data, verification scripts, and analysis code for full reproducibility.