ProdCodeBench: A Production-Derived Benchmark for Evaluating AI Coding Agents
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01527v2
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 07:18:13 GMT
- Title: ProdCodeBench: A Production-Derived Benchmark for Evaluating AI Coding Agents
- Abstract summary: This paper presents a methodology for curating production-derived benchmarks, illustrated through ProdCodeBench.<n>Each curated sample consists of a verbatim prompt, a committed code change and fail-to-pass tests spanning seven programming languages.<n>Our systematic analysis of four foundation models yields solve rates ranging from 53.2% to 72.2%.
- Score: 10.578603956693696
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Benchmarks that reflect production workloads are better for evaluating AI coding agents in industrial settings, yet existing benchmarks differ from real usage in programming language distribution, prompt style and codebase structure. This paper presents a methodology for curating production-derived benchmarks, illustrated through ProdCodeBench, a benchmark sourced from real developer-agent sessions. We detail our data collection and curation practices including LLM-based task classification, test relevance validation, and multi-run stability checks which address challenges in constructing reliable evaluation signals from monorepo environments. Each curated sample consists of a verbatim prompt, a committed code change and fail-to-pass tests spanning seven programming languages. Our systematic analysis of four foundation models yields solve rates ranging from 53.2% to 72.2%. We demonstrate how these offline evaluation signals drive practical decisions around model selection and harness design, while noting that offline benchmarks provide directional signal that we complement with online A/B testing for production deployment decisions. We share our methodology and lessons learned to enable other organizations to construct similar production-derived benchmarks.
Related papers
- Test-Driven Approaches to Software Engineering with Large Language Models: A Survey of Phases, Tasks, and Agent Skills [14.44743150931186]
Tests increasingly participate in the decisions made by large language models and software engineering agents.<n>They specify intended behavior, guide program construction and repair, select candidates, constrain transformations, and provide execution evidence for software analysis.<n>These uses draw on test-driven development, yet differ substantially in test order, oracle availability, editable artifacts, and the role of execution.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-09-10T06:20:22Z) - Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Once [28.30618112297148]
We introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building.<n>Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control.<n>We produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-04T17:52:04Z) - AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production [32.52315519888507]
We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business.<n>Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-14T00:43:20Z) - WybeCoder: Verified Imperative Code Generation [22.401681809856896]
WybeCoder is an agentic code verification framework.<n>It enables prove-as-you-generate development where code, invariants, and proofs co-evolve.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-31T00:06:44Z) - DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol [51.3646001384887]
Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP) is a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework.<n>By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation.<n>We develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-01T16:10:16Z) - SiliconMind-V1: Multi-Agent Distillation and Debug-Reasoning Workflows for Verilog Code Generation [1.8797634116550468]
Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as a promising approach for automating Verilog code generation.<n>This work proposes a unified multi-agent framework for reasoning-oriented training data generation with integrated testbench-driven verification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-10T06:43:20Z) - PACIFIC: a framework for generating benchmarks to check Precise Automatically Checked Instruction Following In Code [1.1164117387254457]
Large Language Model (LLM)-based code assistants have emerged as a powerful application of generative AI.<n>Key requirement for these systems is their ability to accurately follow user instructions.<n>We present PACIFIC, a novel framework designed to automatically generate benchmarks that rigorously assess sequential instruction-following and code dry-running capabilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-11T14:49:56Z) - CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z) - Automated Validation of LLM-based Evaluators for Software Engineering Artifacts [0.7548538278943616]
REFINE (Ranking Evaluators for FIne grained Nuanced Evaluation) is an automated framework for benchmarking large language models (LLMs)<n> REFINE applies novel generation techniques to automatically synthesize artifacts with progressively reduced quality.<n>It quantifies each candidate evaluator configuration by measuring how closely its rankings align with expected ordering.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-04T18:52:01Z) - 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) - IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z) - Scoring Verifiers: Evaluating Synthetic Verification for Code and Reasoning [59.25951947621526]
We propose an approach which can transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers.<n>We release four new benchmarks (HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+), and analyzed synthetic verification methods with standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs.<n>Our experiments show that reasoning can significantly improve test case generation and that scaling the number of test cases enhances the verification accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-19T15:32:11Z) - Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z) - Automated Refactoring of Non-Idiomatic Python Code: A Differentiated Replication with LLMs [54.309127753635366]
We present the results of a replication study in which we investigate GPT-4 effectiveness in recommending and suggesting idiomatic actions.<n>Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs to achieve tasks where, in the past, implementing recommenders based on complex code analyses was required.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-28T15:41:54Z) - Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework.
Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z) - DOCE: Finding the Sweet Spot for Execution-Based Code Generation [69.5305729627198]
We propose a comprehensive framework that includes candidate generation, $n$-best reranking, minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, and self-ging as the core components.
Our findings highlight the importance of execution-based methods and the difference gap between execution-based and execution-free methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-25T07:10:36Z) - RepoMasterEval: Evaluating Code Completion via Real-World Repositories [14.744942194298673]
RepoMasterEval is a novel benchmark for evaluating code completion models constructed from real-world repositories.<n>Each benchmark is generated by masking a code snippet from one source code file with existing test suites.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-07T03:06:57Z)
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.