RealBench: A Repo-Level Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Software Development Practices

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22659v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:35:54 GMT
• Title: RealBench: A Repo-Level Code Generation Benchmark Aligned with Real-World Software Development Practices
• Abstract summary: Researchers have made substantial progress using Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation.<n>However, developers typically write code based on structured designs or specifications rather than raw natural language descriptions.<n>This gap between existing benchmarks and real industry development practices means that current benchmark scores may not accurately reflect how much code generation can help automate development tasks.
• Score: 54.956760584923295
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Writing code requires significant time and effort in software development. To automate this process, researchers have made substantial progress using Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation. Many benchmarks like HumanEval and EvoCodeBench have been created to evaluate LLMs by requiring them to generate code from natural language requirements. However, in enterprise applications and team development, developers typically write code based on structured designs or specifications rather than raw natural language descriptions. This gap between existing benchmarks and real industry development practices means that current benchmark scores may not accurately reflect how much code generation can help automate software development tasks. To address this gap, we propose RealBench, a repository-level code generation benchmark aligned with real-world industry software development practices. Each example includes both natural language requirements and UML diagrams as system design, matching how developers typically receive specifications. Based on the constructed benchmarks, we conduct a systematic evaluation of advanced LLMs' code generation capabilities when provided with structured system designs. The experimental results reveal key insights in current LLMs' capabilities for repo-level code generation aligned with real-world software development practices. First, we notice that regarding repo-level code generation, LLMs show much worse performance and there are significant performance gaps among LLMs. Second, LLMs are good at finding and creating modules defined in UML diagrams, but the quality of generated modules is often poor due to grammar and logic errors. Third, generating the entire repository at once is the best generation strategy on smaller repositories, while generating a complex repository with the module-by-module strategy works better compared to other strategies.

Related papers

• Environment-Aware Code Generation: How far are We? [52.69113158357018]
  It is unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably generate executable code tailored to a user's specific environment.<n>We present the first systematic study of Environment-Aware Code Generation (EACG), where generated code must be functionally correct and directly executable under arbitrary software configurations.<n>Our results show that current LLMs struggle with environment-specific code generation, while our adaptations improve environment compatibility and executability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T04:58:15Z)
• The Fools are Certain; the Wise are Doubtful: Exploring LLM Confidence in Code Completion [4.215010577170175]
  We evaluate the confidence of Large Language Models (LLMs) when generating code by measuring code perplexity.<n>We find that strongly-typed languages exhibit lower perplexity than dynamically typed languages.<n> Perl appears universally high in perplexity, whereas Java appears low.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T06:51:13Z)
• On LLM-Assisted Generation of Smart Contracts from Business Processes [0.08192907805418582]
  Large language models (LLMs) have changed the reality of how software is produced.<n>We present an exploratory study to investigate the use of LLMs for generating smart contract code from business process descriptions.<n>Our results show that LLM performance falls short of the perfect reliability required for smart contract development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T20:39:45Z)
• IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generation [69.28317223249358]
  The paper introduces forward and backward constraints generation to improve the instruction-following capabilities of Code LLMs.<n>The authors present IFEvalCode, a multilingual benchmark comprising 1.6K test samples across seven programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:08:48Z)
• 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)
• FEA-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Repository-Level Code Generation for Feature Implementation [26.14778133391999]
  FEA-Bench is a benchmark designed to assess the ability of large language models to perform incremental development within code repositories.<n>We collect pull requests from 83 GitHub repositories and use rule-based and intent-based filtering to construct task instances focused on new feature development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T16:11:57Z)
• CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generation [20.013757490442064]
  We introduce CodeIF, the first benchmark designed to assess the abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to adhere to task-oriented instructions.<n>CodeIF encompasses a broad range of tasks, including function synthesis, algorithmic instructions, and code explanation.<n>We conduct extensive experiments with LLMs, analyzing their strengths and limitations in meeting the demands of these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T14:19:49Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation [9.555952109820392]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered remarkable advancements across diverse code-related tasks. This survey aims to bridge the gap between academia and practical development by providing a comprehensive and up-to-date literature review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T17:48:15Z)
• Prompting Large Language Models to Tackle the Full Software Development Lifecycle: A Case Study [72.24266814625685]
  We explore the performance of large language models (LLMs) across the entire software development lifecycle with DevEval.<n>DevEval features four programming languages, multiple domains, high-quality data collection, and carefully designed and verified metrics for each task.<n> Empirical studies show that current LLMs, including GPT-4, fail to solve the challenges presented within DevEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T15:13:44Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• 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)

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.