PELLI: Framework to effectively integrate LLMs for quality software generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent studies have revealed that when LLMs are appropriately prompted and configured, they demonstrate mixed results. Such results often meet or exceed the baseline performance. However, these comparisons have two primary issues. First, they mostly considered only reliability as a comparison metric and selected a few LLMs (such as Codex and ChatGPT) for comparision. This paper proposes a comprehensive code quality assessment framework called Programmatic Excellence via LLM Iteration (PELLI). PELLI is an iterative analysis-based process that upholds high-quality code changes. We extended the state-of-the-art by performing a comprehensive evaluation that generates quantitative metrics for analyzing three primary nonfunctional requirements (such as maintainability, performance, and reliability) while selecting five popular LLMs. For PELLI's applicability, we selected three application domains while following Python coding standards. Following this framework, practitioners can ensure harmonious integration between LLMs and human developers, ensuring that their potential is fully realized. PELLI can serve as a practical guide for developers aiming to leverage LLMs while adhering to recognized quality standards. This study's outcomes are crucial for advancing LLM technologies in real-world applications, providing stakeholders with a clear understanding of where these LLMs excel and where they require further refinement. Overall, based on three nonfunctional requirements, we have found that GPT-4T and Gemini performed slightly better. We also found that prompt design can influence the overall code quality. In addition, each application domain demonstrated high and low scores across various metrics, and even within the same metrics across different prompts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2026.
Builds on
16 of 32 references.
References · 16
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
- 2023Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyondcited by 409
- 2023An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generationcited by 193
- 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 186
- 2023ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generationcited by 166
- 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
4 more
- 2023On the Robustness of Code Generation Techniques: An Empirical Study on GitHub Copilotcited by 64
- 2023AI-assisted coding: Experiments with GPT-4cited by 43
- 2023Comparing Software Developers with ChatGPT: An Empirical Investigationcited by 11
- 2023Can GPT-4 Replicate Empirical Software Engineering Research?cited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.