Assessing and Improving the Representativeness of Code Generation Benchmarks Using Knowledge Units (KUs) of Programming Languages -- An Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03780v1
• Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:23:33 GMT
• Title: Assessing and Improving the Representativeness of Code Generation Benchmarks Using Knowledge Units (KUs) of Programming Languages -- An Empirical Study
• Authors: Md Ahasanuzzaman, Bram Adams, Emad Fallahzadeh, Gustavo A. Oliva, Ahmed E. Hassan,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in code generation.<n>LLMs must understand and apply a wide range of language concepts.<n>If the concepts exercised in benchmarks are not representative of those used in real-world projects, evaluations may yield incomplete.
• Score: 7.0773305889955616
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, Claude and LLaMA have shown impressive performance in code generation, typically evaluated using benchmarks (e.g., HumanEval). However, effective code generation requires models to understand and apply a wide range of language concepts. If the concepts exercised in benchmarks are not representative of those used in real-world projects, evaluations may yield incomplete. Despite this concern, the representativeness of code concepts in benchmarks has not been systematically examined. To address this gap, we present the first empirical study that analyzes the representativeness of code generation benchmarks through the lens of Knowledge Units (KUs) - cohesive sets of programming language capabilities provided by language constructs and APIs. We analyze KU coverage in two widely used Python benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and compare them with 30 real-world Python projects. Our results show that each benchmark covers only half of the identified 20 KUs, whereas projects exercise all KUs with relatively balanced distributions. In contrast, benchmark tasks exhibit highly skewed KU distributions. To mitigate this misalignment, we propose a prompt-based LLM framework that synthesizes KU-based tasks to rebalance benchmark KU distributions and better align them with real-world usage. Using this framework, we generate 440 new tasks and augment existing benchmarks. The augmented benchmarks substantially improve KU coverage and achieve over a 60% improvement in distributional alignment. Evaluations of state-of-the-art LLMs on these augmented benchmarks reveal consistent and statistically significant performance drops (12.54-44.82%), indicating that existing benchmarks overestimate LLM performance due to their limited KU coverage. Our findings provide actionable guidance for building more realistic evaluations of LLM code-generation capabilities.

Related papers

• CelloAI Benchmarks: Toward Repeatable Evaluation of AI Assistants [2.2811622267552014]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are increasingly used for software development.<n>Existing benchmarks for LLM-based coding assistance do not reflect the constraints of High Energy Physics and High Performance Computing software.<n>This paper develops practical, repeatable benchmarks that quantify LLM performance on HEP/ HPC-relevant tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T11:16:50Z)
• AXIOM: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Code via Rule-Based Perturbation and Multisource Quality Calibration [28.117814524373667]
  AXIOM is a novel perturbation-based framework for synthesizing code evaluation benchmarks at scale.<n>It reframes program scores as the refinement effort needed for deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:39:22Z)
• Structured Prompting Enables More Robust Evaluation of Language Models [38.53918044830268]
  We present a DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning.<n>We find that without structured prompting, HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average) and performance estimates vary more across benchmarks.<n>This is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T20:37:59Z)
• Beyond Synthetic Benchmarks: Evaluating LLM Performance on Real-World Class-Level Code Generation [3.9189409002585567]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on function-level code generation benchmarks.<n>We introduce a benchmark derived from real-world open-source repositories to evaluate generalization under practical conditions.<n>We examine how input specification completeness and retrieval-augmented generation affect class-level correctness across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T04:30:23Z)
• Benchmark Profiling: Mechanistic Diagnosis of LLM Benchmarks [34.09939383415074]
  Benchmark Profiling decomposes benchmark performance into ten cognitively grounded abilities.<n>It explains why performance gains do not always translate into user-perceived competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T15:32:47Z)
• 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)
• Re-Evaluating Code LLM Benchmarks Under Semantic Mutation [8.58692613099365]
  We present an empirical study to investigate prompt sensitivity in code benchmarks.<n>We propose a general framework that modifies prompt templates in a manner that preserves both their semantics and their structure.<n>Our findings suggest that even slight prompt variations can lead to significant shifts in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T15:30:36Z)
• A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibility [47.56466996118911]
  Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs)<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices.<n>We propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T17:58:17Z)
• How Should We Build A Benchmark? Revisiting 274 Code-Related Benchmarks For LLMs [60.25940747590386]
  We propose How2Bench, which is comprised of a 55-criteria checklist as a set of guidelines to govern the development of code-related benchmarks comprehensively.<n>We profiled 274 benchmarks released within the past decade and found concerning issues.<n>Nearly 70% of the benchmarks did not take measures for data quality assurance; over 10% did not even open source or only partially open source.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-18T09:51:57Z)
• A Preliminary Study of Multilingual Code Language Models for Code Generation Task Using Translated Benchmarks [0.0]
  We evaluate the performance of Poly-Coder, a pioneering open-source, multilingual CLM built for code generation. Our results suggest that the outcomes observed in these translated benchmarks align well with evaluation metrics used during the training phase. These initial insights highlight the need for more comprehensive empirical studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T06:40:47Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• The Benchmark Lottery [114.43978017484893]
  "A benchmark lottery" describes the overall fragility of the machine learning benchmarking process. We show that the relative performance of algorithms may be altered significantly simply by choosing different benchmark tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T21:08:30Z)

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.