Yunkun Wang

Weixiang Yan, Haitian Liu, Yunkun Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on assisting humans in programming and facilitating programming automation. However, existing benchmarks for evaluating the code understanding and generation capacities of LLMs suffer from severe limitations. First, most benchmarks are insufficient as they focus on a narrow range of popular programming languages and specific tasks, whereas real-world software development scenarios show a critical need to implement systems with multilingual and multitask programming environments to satisfy diverse requirements. Second, most benchmarks fail to consider the actual executability and the consistency of execution results of the generated code. To bridge these gaps between existing benchmarks and expectations from practical applications, we introduce CodeScope, an execution-based, multilingual, multitask, multidimensional evaluation benchmark for comprehensively measuring LLM capabilities on coding tasks. CodeScope covers 43 programming languages and eight coding tasks. It evaluates the coding performance of LLMs from three dimensions (perspectives): length, difficulty, and efficiency. To facilitate execution-based evaluations of code generation, we develop MultiCodeEngine, an automated code execution engine that supports 14 programming languages. Finally, we systematically evaluate and analyze eight mainstream LLMs and demonstrate the superior breadth and challenges of CodeScope for evaluating LLMs on code understanding and generation tasks compared to other benchmarks. The CodeScope benchmark and code are publicly available at https://github.com/WeixiangYAN/CodeScope.

Zhenyu Pan, Xuefeng Song, Yunkun Wang et al.

Code Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate great versatility in adapting to various downstream tasks, including code generation and completion, as well as bug detection and fixing. However, Code LLMs often fail to capture existing coding standards, leading to the generation of code that conflicts with the required design patterns for a given project. As a result, developers must post-process to adapt the generated code to the project's design norms. In this work, we empirically investigate the biases of Code LLMs in software development. Through carefully designed experiments, we assess the models' understanding of design patterns across recognition, comprehension, and generation. Our findings reveal that biases in Code LLMs significantly affect the reliability of downstream tasks.