CONCUR: Benchmarking LLMs for Concurrent Code Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation has increasingly emerged as a common practice in the domain of software engineering. Relevant benchmarks have been established to evaluate the code generation capabilities of LLMs. However, existing benchmarks focus primarily on sequential code, lacking the ability to effectively evaluate LLMs on concurrent code generation. Compared to sequential code, concurrent code exhibits greater complexity and possesses unique types of bugs, such as deadlocks and race conditions, that do not occur in sequential code. Therefore, a benchmark for evaluating sequential code generation cannot be useful for evaluating concurrent code generation with LLMs. To address this gap, we designed a benchmark CONCUR specifically aimed at evaluating the capability of LLMs to generate concurrent code. CONCUR consists of a base set of 43 concurrency problems derived from a standard concurrency textbook, together with 72 validated mutant variants, resulting in 115 total problems. The base problems serve as the semantic core of the benchmark, while the mutants expand linguistic and structural diversity. We conducted an evaluation of a range of LLMs on CONCUR, highlighting limitations of current models. Overall, our work provides a novel direction for evaluating the capability of LLMs to generate code with focus on concurrency.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.
Builds on
22 of 44 references.
References · 22
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,273
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2023WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instructcited by 728
- 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 468
- 2022DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generationcited by 442
10 more
- 2022Multi-lingual Evaluation of Code Generation Modelscited by 158
- 2022Practical Program Repair in the Era of Large Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 133
- 2024OpenCoder: The Open Cookbook for Top-Tier Code Large Language Modelscited by 127
- 2021Leveraging Automated Unit Tests for Unsupervised Code Translationcited by 82
- 2022Less Training, More Repairing Please: Revisiting Automated Program Repair via Zero-shot Learningcited by 76
- 2022Automated Repair of Programs from Large Language Modelscited by 71
- 2022Repair Is Nearly Generation: Multilingual Program Repair with LLMscited by 68
- 2023LLMs for Science: Usage for Code Generation and Data Analysiscited by 34
- 2025Assessing Correctness in LLM-Based Code Generation via Uncertainty Estimationcited by 14
- 2024The Fact Selection Problem in LLM-Based Program Repaircited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.