SwiftEval: Developing a Language-Specific Benchmark for LLM-generated Code Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24324v1
• Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 08:06:30 GMT
• Title: SwiftEval: Developing a Language-Specific Benchmark for LLM-generated Code Evaluation
• Authors: Ivan Petrukha, Yana Kurliak, Nataliia Stulova,
• Abstract summary: We present SwiftEval, the first Swift-oriented benchmark consisting of 28 carefully hand-crafted problems, and evaluate 44 popular Code LLMs on it.<n>Our results show significant LLM scores drop for problems requiring language-specific features, most noticeable in the models of smaller sizes.
• Score: 0.4962561299282114
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have showcased significant advancements in code generation. However, most evaluation benchmarks are primarily oriented towards Python, making it difficult to evaluate other programming languages, such as Swift, with high quality. By examining widely established multilingual benchmarks like HumanEval-XL and MultiPL-E, we identified critical issues specific to their Swift components, making them insufficient or even irrelevant for assessing LLM coding capabilities on Swift. Unlike these existing approaches, which prioritize rapid scaling and generalization by automatically translating Python-centric benchmarks with LLMs, we adopt a quality-over-quantity methodology. We present SwiftEval, the first Swift-oriented benchmark consisting of 28 carefully hand-crafted problems, and evaluate 44 popular Code LLMs on it. Our results show significant LLM scores drop for problems requiring language-specific features, most noticeable in the models of smaller sizes.

Related papers

• Evaluating Large Language Model with Knowledge Oriented Language Specific Simple Question Answering [73.73820209993515]
  We introduce KoLasSimpleQA, the first benchmark evaluating the multilingual factual ability of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Inspired by existing research, we created the question set with features such as single knowledge point coverage, absolute objectivity, unique answers, and temporal stability.<n>Results show significant performance differences between the two domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T12:27:02Z)
• PolyMath: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning in Multilingual Contexts [79.84059473102778]
  PolyMath is a multilingual mathematical reasoning benchmark covering 18 languages and 4 easy-to-hard difficulty levels.<n>Our benchmark ensures difficulty comprehensiveness, language diversity, and high-quality translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T15:39:04Z)
• ClassEval-T: Evaluating Large Language Models in Class-Level Code Translation [19.69195067838796]
  We construct a class-level code translation benchmark, ClassEval-T, and make the first attempt to extensively assess recent LLMs' performance on class-level code translation.<n>It cost us 360 person-hours to accomplish the manual migration to Java and C++ with complete code samples and associated test suites.<n> Experimental results demonstrate a remarkable performance drop compared with the most widely studied method-level code translation benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T11:13:14Z)
• ProverbEval: Exploring LLM Evaluation Challenges for Low-resource Language Understanding [15.93642619347214]
  We introduce proverbeval, LLM evaluation benchmark for low-resource languages.<n>Native language proverb descriptions significantly improve tasks such as proverb generation.<n> monolingual evaluations consistently outperformed their cross-lingual counterparts in generation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T06:34:48Z)
• mHumanEval -- A Multilingual Benchmark to Evaluate Large Language Models for Code Generation [28.531581489405745]
  mHumanEval is an extended benchmark supporting prompts in over 200 natural languages.<n>We provide expert human translations for 15 diverse natural languages (NLs)<n>We conclude by analyzing the multilingual code generation capabilities of state-of-the-art (SOTA) Code LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T08:44:26Z)
• CRUXEval-X: A Benchmark for Multilingual Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution [50.1875460416205]
  The CRUXEVAL-X code reasoning benchmark contains 19 programming languages.<n>It comprises at least 600 subjects for each language, along with 19K content-consistent tests in total.<n>Even a model trained solely on Python can achieve at most 34.4% Pass@1 in other languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:43:00Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts.<n>We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion.<n>We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• PythonSaga: Redefining the Benchmark to Evaluate Code Generating LLMs [1.9207412600219353]
  We evaluate two popular benchmarks for Python code generation, analyzing their diversity and difficulty. Our findings unveil a critical bias towards a limited set of programming concepts, neglecting most of the other concepts entirely. We propose a novel benchmark, PythonSaga, featuring 185 hand-crafted prompts on a balanced representation of 38 programming concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T12:36:43Z)
• Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.90926820437014]
  We introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T05:13:55Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)

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.