TREAT: A Code LLMs Trustworthiness / Reliability Evaluation and Testing Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17163v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 05:05:00 GMT
• Title: TREAT: A Code LLMs Trustworthiness / Reliability Evaluation and Testing Framework
• Authors: Shuzheng Gao, Eric John Li, Man Ho Lam, Jingyu Xiao, Yuxuan Wan, Chaozheng Wang, Ng Man Tik, Michael R. Lyu,
• Abstract summary: We present an evaluation framework that provides a holistic assessment of model performance in code intelligence tasks.<n>Our evaluation framework addresses key limitations in existing approaches with four main improvements.<n>Based on this evaluation framework, we assess 26 state-of-the-art models and uncover both their strengths and limitations.
• Score: 37.14734285161928
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large foundation models are fundamentally transforming the software engineering landscape, demonstrating exceptional capabilities across diverse tasks such as code generation, debugging, and testing. Despite this rapid progress, a significant gap remains in how to comprehensively evaluate these models' trustworthiness in real-world software engineering scenarios. Existing benchmarks suffer from limited task scope and fail to incorporate critical evaluation aspects such as the robustness and reliability of models. To bridge this gap, we present an evaluation framework called TREAT (Code LLMs Trustworthiness / Reliability Evaluation And Testing) that provides a holistic assessment of model performance in code intelligence tasks. Our evaluation framework addresses key limitations in existing approaches with four main improvements: (1) Multi-Task Holistic Evaluation that spans diverse software engineering activities rather than limited coding tasks; (2) Multi-Language and Multi-Modality Assessment that extends beyond traditional single-language, text-only benchmarks to include multi-modality coding tasks; (3) Robustness Assessment that evaluates model reliability under semantically-preserving code transformations; and (4) Rigorous Evaluation Methodology that enhances the trustworthiness of evaluation results through diverse evaluation prompts and adaptive solution extraction. Based on this evaluation framework, we assess 26 state-of-the-art models and uncover both their strengths and limitations, yielding several key insights:(1) Current models show substantial performance variation across programming tasks; (2) Multi-modal language models demonstrate specific performance limitations in UI code generation and edit;

Related papers

• RefactorCoderQA: Benchmarking LLMs for Multi-Domain Coding Question Solutions in Cloud and Edge Deployment [20.416910591388618]
  We introduce RefactorCoderQA, a benchmark designed to evaluate and enhance the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across coding tasks.<n>Our fine-tuned model, RefactorCoder-MoE, achieves state-of-the-art performance, significantly outperforming leading open-source and commercial baselines with an overall accuracy of 76.84%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T17:44:22Z)
• MERA Code: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Code Generation Across Tasks [56.34018316319873]
  We propose MERA Code, a benchmark for evaluating code for the latest code generation LLMs in Russian.<n>This benchmark includes 11 evaluation tasks that span 8 programming languages.<n>We evaluate open LLMs and frontier API models, analyzing their limitations in terms of practical coding tasks in non-English languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T14:31:33Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• CoCo-Bench: A Comprehensive Code Benchmark For Multi-task Large Language Model Evaluation [19.071855537400463]
  Large language models (LLMs) play a crucial role in software engineering, excelling in tasks like code generation and maintenance.<n>CoCo-Bench is designed to evaluate LLMs across four critical dimensions: code understanding, code generation, code modification, and code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T11:57:23Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Beyond Metrics: A Critical Analysis of the Variability in Large Language Model Evaluation Frameworks [3.773596042872403]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, the need for robust and standardized evaluation benchmarks becomes paramount. Various frameworks have emerged as noteworthy contributions to the field, offering comprehensive evaluation tests and benchmarks. This paper provides an exploration and critical analysis of some of these evaluation methodologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and impact on advancing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:37:14Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Improving the Learning of Code Review Successive Tasks with Cross-Task Knowledge Distillation [1.0878040851638]
  We introduce a novel deep-learning architecture, named DISCOREV, which employs cross-task knowledge distillation to address these tasks simultaneously. We show that our approach generates better review comments, as measured by the BLEU score, as well as more accurate code refinement according to the CodeBLEU score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T07:02:22Z)
• MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player? [114.45702807380415]
  We propose MMBench, a benchmark for assessing the multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models. MMBench is meticulously curated with well-designed quality control schemes. MMBench incorporates multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T16:23:09Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• On the Reliability and Explainability of Language Models for Program Generation [15.569926313298337]
  We study the capabilities and limitations of automated program generation approaches. We employ advanced explainable AI approaches to highlight the tokens that significantly contribute to the code transformation. Our analysis reveals that, in various experimental scenarios, language models can recognize code grammar and structural information, but they exhibit limited robustness to changes in input sequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T14:59:52Z)

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.