Code Generation with Small Language Models: A Codeforces-Based Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07343v2
• Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 15:04:41 GMT
• Title: Code Generation with Small Language Models: A Codeforces-Based Study
• Authors: Débora Souza, Rohit Gheyi, Lucas Albuquerque, Gustavo Soares, Márcio Ribeiro,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate capabilities in code generation, potentially boosting developer productivity.<n>However, their adoption remains limited by high computational costs, among other factors.<n>Small Language Models (SLMs) present a lightweight alternative.
• Score: 1.728619497446087
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate capabilities in code generation, potentially boosting developer productivity. However, their adoption remains limited by high computational costs, among other factors. Small Language Models (SLMs) present a lightweight alternative. While LLMs have been evaluated on competitive programming tasks, prior work often emphasizes metrics like Elo or pass rates, neglecting failure analysis. The potential of SLMs in this space remains underexplored. In this study, we benchmark three open SLMs - Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-3-12B, and Phi-4-14B - across 280 Codeforces problems spanning Elo ratings from 800 to 2100 and covering 36 distinct topics. All models were tasked with generating Python solutions. Phi-4-14B achieved the best SLM performance with a pass@3 of 63.6%, nearing o3-mini-high (86.8%). Combining Python and C++ outputs increased Phi-4-14B's pass@6 to 73.6%. A qualitative analysis revealed some failures stemmed from minor implementation issues rather than reasoning flaws.

Related papers

• A Multi-Language Object-Oriented Programming Benchmark for Large Language Models [61.267115598083315]
  A survey of 35 existing benchmarks uncovers three major imbalances.<n>85.7% focus on a single programming language.<n>94.3% target only function-level or statement-level tasks.<n>Over 80% include fewer than ten test cases on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:30:08Z)
• A Hierarchical and Evolvable Benchmark for Fine-Grained Code Instruction Following with Multi-Turn Feedback [30.446511584123492]
  Large language models (LLMs) have advanced significantly in code generation, yet their ability to follow complex programming instructions with layered and diverse constraints remains underexplored.<n>We introduce MultiCodeIF, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate instruction-following in code generation across multiple dimensions.<n>We synthesize and evolve 2,021 code tasks sourced from 14 programming languages, supporting multi-turn evaluation through feedback-driven task variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T11:51:40Z)
• Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback [59.078756231841574]
  Critique-GRPO is an online RL framework that integrates both natural language and numerical feedback for effective policy optimization.<n>We show Critique-GRPO consistently outperforms supervised learning and RL-based fine-tuning methods across eight challenging mathematical, STEM, and general reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T17:39:02Z)
• Scalable LLM Math Reasoning Acceleration with Low-rank Distillation [57.922185576872444]
  We propose a resource-efficient distillation method to recover lost capabilities from deploying efficient inference methods.<n>With original weights unperturbed, roughly 1% of additional parameters, and only 20K synthetic training samples, we are able to recover much if not all of the math capabilities lost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T17:51:24Z)
• Fully Autonomous Programming using Iterative Multi-Agent Debugging with Large Language Models [8.70160958177614]
  Program synthesis with Large Language Models (LLMs) suffers from a "near-miss syndrome"<n>We address this with a multi-agent framework called Synthesize, Execute, Instruct, Debug, and Repair (SEIDR)<n>We empirically explore these trade-offs by comparing replace-focused, repair-focused, and hybrid debug strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T16:56:51Z)
• Quantizing Large Language Models for Code Generation: A Differentiated Replication [51.85505914274633]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown an impressive capability in code generation and, specifically, to automatically implement requirements described in natural language.<n>LLMs pose significant challenges related to their memory (and, consequently, carbon) footprint.<n>New frontier for LLM quantization is 4-bit precision, resulting in an average memory footprint reduction of 70%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T09:26:08Z)
• DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4, Phi-4, and LLaMA-3.3 generate correct code for LoRaWAN-related engineering tasks [0.8301471481260676]
  This paper investigates the performance of 16 Large Language Models (LLMs) in automating LoRaWAN-related engineering tasks. To assess this, we compared locally run models against state-of-the-art alternatives, such as GPT-4 and DeepSeek-V3. Results show that while DeepSeek-V3 and GPT-4 consistently provided accurate solutions, certain smaller models -- particularly Phi-4 and LLaMA-3.3 -- also demonstrated strong performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T23:16:29Z)
• Where's the Bug? Attention Probing for Scalable Fault Localization [18.699014321422023]
  We present Bug Attention Probe (BAP), a method which learns state-of-the-art fault localization without any direct localization labels. BAP is significantly more efficient than prompting, outperforming large open-weight models at a small fraction of the computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T18:59:32Z)
• EquiBench: Benchmarking Code Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models via Equivalence Checking [54.354203142828084]
  We present the task of equivalence checking as a new way to evaluate the code reasoning abilities of large language models.<n>We introduce EquiBench, a dataset of 2400 program pairs spanning four programming languages and six equivalence categories.<n>Our evaluation of 17 state-of-the-art LLMs shows that OpenAI o3-mini achieves the highest overall accuracy of 78.0%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:54:25Z)
• Token-by-Token Regeneration and Domain Biases: A Benchmark of LLMs on Advanced Mathematical Problem-Solving [0.0]
  This study evalu-ates 10 large language models (LLMs) with 7 to 8 billion parameters using the MATH dataset.<n>The focus is on their ability to generate executable Python code as a step in their reasoning process, involving over 9,450 code executions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T17:11:36Z)
• Preference Optimization for Reasoning with Pseudo Feedback [100.62603571434167]
  We introduce a novel approach to generate pseudo feedback for reasoning tasks by framing the labeling of solutions as an evaluation against associated test cases. We conduct experiments on both mathematical reasoning and coding tasks using pseudo feedback for preference optimization, and observe improvements across both tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T12:44:02Z)
• Evaluating Quantized Large Language Models for Code Generation on Low-Resource Language Benchmarks [0.0]
  This study assesses the performance of five quantized code LLMs in Lua code generation tasks. The results suggest that the models quantized at the 4-bit integer precision offer the best trade-off between performance and model size. While quantization indeed increases the accessibility of smaller LLMs with 7 billion parameters, these LLMs demonstrate overall low performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T15:50:59Z)
• Large Language Models as Code Executors: An Exploratory Study [29.545321608864295]
  This paper pioneers the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as code executors. We are the first to examine this feasibility across various LLMs, including OpenAI's o1, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, DeepSeek, and Qwen-Coder. We introduce an Iterative Instruction Prompting (IIP) technique that processes code snippets line by line, enhancing the accuracy of weaker models by an average of 7.22%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T08:23:22Z)
• OptiBench Meets ReSocratic: Measure and Improve LLMs for Optimization Modeling [62.19438812624467]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited their problem-solving abilities in mathematical reasoning. We propose OptiBench, a benchmark for End-to-end optimization problem-solving with human-readable inputs and outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-13T13:27:57Z)
• Uncovering Weaknesses in Neural Code Generation [21.552898575210534]
  We assess the quality of generated code using match-based and execution-based metrics, then conduct thematic analysis to develop a taxonomy of nine types of weaknesses. In the CoNaLa dataset, inaccurate prompts are a notable problem, causing all large models to fail in 26.84% of cases. Missing pivotal semantics is a pervasive issue across benchmarks, with one or more large models omitting key semantics in 65.78% of CoNaLa tasks. All models struggle with proper API usage, a challenge amplified by vague or complex prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-13T07:31:43Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language Models [93.13542053835542]
  Performance of large language models (LLMs) is acutely sensitive to the phrasing of prompts. We introduce RobustAlpacaEval, a new benchmark that consists of semantically equivalent case-level queries. Experiments on RobustAlpacaEval with ChatGPT and six open-source LLMs from the Llama, Mistral, and Gemma families uncover substantial variability in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-08T13:40:38Z)
• Low-Cost Language Models: Survey and Performance Evaluation on Python Code Generation [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a popular choice for many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. LLMs' substantial computational and memory requirements often make them inaccessible to users with limited resources. This paper focuses on very low-cost models which offer a more accessible alternative to resource-intensive LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T08:16:48Z)
• Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Trees [119.57169648859707]
  We introduce Eurus, a suite of large language models (LLMs) optimized for reasoning. Eurus models achieve state-of-the-art results among open-source models on a diverse set of benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T16:25:30Z)
• Large Language Model-Aware In-Context Learning for Code Generation [75.68709482932903]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive in-context learning (ICL) ability in code generation. We propose a novel learning-based selection approach named LAIL (LLM-Aware In-context Learning) for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T06:12:58Z)
• Cumulative Reasoning with Large Language Models [12.267474250936123]
  Cumulative Reasoning (CR) is an approach that utilizes large language models cumulatively and iteratively.<n>We demonstrate CR's advantage through several complex reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:18:20Z)
• Massively Multilingual Shallow Fusion with Large Language Models [62.76735265311028]
  We train a single multilingual language model (LM) for shallow fusion in multiple languages. Compared to a dense LM of similar computation during inference, GLaM reduces the WER of an English long-tail test set by 4.4% relative. In a multilingual shallow fusion task, GLaM improves 41 out of 50 languages with an average relative WER reduction of 3.85%, and a maximum reduction of 10%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T14:46:38Z)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.