Xiaoyu Zhang

Kaixin Wang, Tianlin Li, Xiaoyu Zhang et al.

Code large language models (CodeLLMs) and agents have shown great promise in tackling complex software engineering tasks.Compared to traditional software engineering methods, CodeLLMs and agents offer stronger abilities, and can flexibly process inputs and outputs in both natural and code. Benchmarking plays a crucial role in evaluating the capabilities of CodeLLMs and agents, guiding their development and deployment. However, despite their growing significance, there remains a lack of comprehensive reviews of benchmarks for CodeLLMs and agents. To bridge this gap, this paper provides a comprehensive review of existing benchmarks for CodeLLMs and agents, studying and analyzing 181 benchmarks from 461 relevant papers, covering the different phases of the software development life cycle (SDLC). Our findings reveal a notable imbalance in the coverage of current benchmarks, with approximately 60% focused on the software development phase in SDLC, while requirements engineering and software design phases receive minimal attention at only 5% and 3%, respectively. Additionally, Python emerges as the dominant programming language across the reviewed benchmarks. Finally, this paper highlights the challenges of current research and proposes future directions, aiming to narrow the gap between the theoretical capabilities of CodeLLMs and agents and their application in real-world scenarios.

Xiaoyu Zhang, Juan Zhai, Shiqing Ma et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as the new recommendation engines, surpassing traditional methods in both capability and scope, particularly in code generation. In this paper, we reveal a novel provider bias in LLMs: without explicit directives, these models show systematic preferences for services from specific providers in their recommendations (e.g., favoring Google Cloud over Microsoft Azure). To systematically investigate this bias, we develop an automated pipeline to construct the dataset, incorporating 6 distinct coding task categories and 30 real-world application scenarios. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct the first comprehensive empirical study of provider bias in LLM code generation across seven state-of-the-art LLMs, utilizing approximately 500 million tokens (equivalent to $5,000+ in computational costs). Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit significant provider preferences, predominantly favoring services from Google and Amazon, and can autonomously modify input code to incorporate their preferred providers without users' requests. Such a bias holds far-reaching implications for market dynamics and societal equilibrium, potentially contributing to digital monopolies. It may also deceive users and violate their expectations, leading to various consequences. We call on the academic community to recognize this emerging issue and develop effective evaluation and mitigation methods to uphold AI security and fairness.