On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16587v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:40:26 GMT
• Title: On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization
• Authors: Giuseppe Crupi, Rosalia Tufano, Alejandro Velasco, Antonio Mastropaolo, Denys Poshyvanyk, Gabriele Bavota,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 54.965787768076254
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A. The basic idea is to delegate to an LLM the assessment of the "quality" of the output provided by an automated technique for tasks for which: (i) quantitative metrics would only tell part of the story, and; (ii) a large-scale human-based evaluation would be too expensive. LLMs-as-a-judge, if proven effective for a specific task, can also unlock new possibilities for automation, with several LLMs proposing a solution for a given instance of the task and others judging and deciding what is the best output to show the user. We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization. The rationale for choosing these tasks is two-fold. First, quantitative metrics are usually not enough for the assessment of code summarizers/generators. For example, it is well documented that metrics such as BLEU are quite weak proxies for the quality of the generated summaries. Second, even state-of-the-art techniques still struggle with handling complex instances of these tasks, making them good candidates for benefiting from more advanced solutions envisioning collaboration among LLMs. For code generation, we check whether eight LLMs are able to judge the correctness of 1,405 Java methods and 1,281 Python functions generated by the same LLMs or implemented by humans. For code summarization, we compare the judgment of five LLMs to those provided by nine humans for ~1.2k summaries, related to both Java and Python functions. Our findings show that GPT-4-turbo is the best LLM in terms of judging capabilities for both tasks, with "smaller" LLMs featuring tens of billions parameters not being able to cope with judging tasks. However, even the best-performing LLM frequently misjudges the correctness of the code and summary quality.

Related papers

• An Empirical Study of Many-to-Many Summarization with Large Language Models [82.10000188179168]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong multi-lingual abilities, giving them the potential to perform Many-to-many summarization (M2MS) in real applications.<n>This work presents a systematic empirical study on LLMs' M2MS ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T11:18:54Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineering [18.766132076075365]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation.<n>Pass@k metric requires extensive unit tests and configured environments, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text.<n>Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T06:49:29Z)
• Scoring with Large Language Models: A Study on Measuring Empathy of Responses in Dialogues [3.2162648244439684]
  We develop a framework for investigating how effective Large Language Models are at measuring and scoring empathy of responses in dialogues.<n>Our strategy is to approximate the performance of state-of-the-art and fine-tuned LLMs with explicit and explainable features.<n>Our results show that when only using embeddings, it is possible to achieve performance close to that of generic LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-28T20:37:57Z)
• SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation [14.46141987797362]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess NLP tasks. Recent work suggests using multiple LLMs as judges yields improved performance. This work focuses on aggregating predictions from multiple systems where no reference labels are available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T07:13:47Z)
• Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models [23.715005053430957]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a great boost in the performance of code-related tasks. In this paper, we undertake a systematic and comprehensive study on code summarization in the era of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T05:48:42Z)
• BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions [72.56339136017759]
  We introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges Large Language Models (LLMs) to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks.<n>Our evaluation shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%.<n>We propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T15:52:04Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)
• 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)
• CodeApex: A Bilingual Programming Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models [43.655927559990616]
  We propose CodeApex, a benchmark dataset focusing on the programming comprehension, code generation, and code correction abilities of LLMs. We evaluate 12 widely used LLMs, including both general-purpose and specialized models. GPT-4 exhibits the best programming capabilities, achieving approximate accuracy of 69%, 54%, and 66% on the three tasks, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T04:12:01Z)
• LLM-Pruner: On the Structural Pruning of Large Language Models [65.02607075556742]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in language understanding and generation. We tackle the compression of LLMs within the bound of two constraints: being task-agnostic and minimizing the reliance on the original training dataset. Our method, named LLM-Pruner, adopts structural pruning that selectively removes non-critical coupled structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T12:10:53Z)

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.