CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10535v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:56:29 GMT
• Title: CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks
• Authors: Hongchao Jiang, Yiming Chen, Yushi Cao, Hung-yi Lee, Robby T. Tan,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks.<n>LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models.
• Score: 63.562924932512765
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks. Beyond directly answering user queries, LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models. Such an evaluation capability is crucial both for benchmarking different LLMs and for improving response quality through response ranking. However, despite the growing adoption of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, its effectiveness in coding scenarios remains underexplored due to the absence of dedicated benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce CodeJudgeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge models across three critical coding tasks: code generation, code repair, and unit test generation. Through comprehensive benchmarking of 26 LLM-as-a-Judge models, we find that recent thinking models significantly outperform non-thinking models on our carefully designed code judging tasks. Notably, even relatively small thinking models, such as Qwen3-8B, can outperform specially trained LLM-as-a-Judge models up to 70B in size. Nevertheless, all models still exhibit significant randomness in their judgment of coding tasks. For pairwise judging tasks, simply changing the order in which responses are presented can substantially impact accuracy. In addition, when judging code and unit tests written by different LLMs, LLM-as-a-Judge models also show variance in performance. This sensitivity raises concerns about the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge in coding scenarios. Lastly, we study optimal prompting strategies for LLM-as-a-Judge. We find that using pair-wise comparison outperforms scalar point-wise judging. Furthermore, retaining comments and reasoning in the full, unprocessed LLM response leads to improved judge performance.

Related papers

• On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization [54.965787768076254]
  Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A.<n>We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T13:40:26Z)
• Self-ensemble: Mitigating Confidence Distortion for Large Language Models [89.03110940871765]
  Large Language Models exhibit a confidence distortion problem on multi-choice question-answering.<n>We propose Self-ensemble to solve this problem.<n> Experimental results on three LLMs and datasets demonstrate that Self-ensemble comprehensively addresses the confidence distortion problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:59:29Z)
• Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models via Collaborative Filtering [25.734508624520164]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been proposed to measure and compare the capabilities of different LLMs.<n> evaluating LLMs is costly due to the large number of test instances and their slow inference speed.<n>We propose a two-stage method to efficiently estimate a model's real performance on a given benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T07:46:30Z)
• A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models [11.087034068992653]
  FAUN-Eval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs.<n>It is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories.<n>We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T03:25:44Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [11.948519516797745]
  We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.<n>Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism [39.392450788666814]
  Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism. greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T06:12:17Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Evaluating Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models on Code Comprehension and Generation [4.310519298899164]
  In this work, we evaluate 10 open-source instructed LLMs on four representative code comprehension and generation tasks. For the zero-shot setting, instructed LLMs are very competitive on code comprehension and generation tasks. For the few-shot setting, we find that adding demonstration examples substantially helps instructed LLMs perform better.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T15:54:22Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.