Is Your Benchmark Still Useful? Dynamic Benchmarking for Code Language Models

Code-related benchmarks play a critical role in evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet their quality fundamentally shapes how the community interprets model capabilities. In the past few years, awareness of benchmark quality has grown. Yet, after a decade-scale (2014-2025) survey over 672 code benchmarks, we observed a lag between growing awareness and actual practice. For example, in 2025 alone, the number of benchmarks that ignore code coverage when providing test cases nearly matches the total count accumulated across the previous ten years. In response, we take a clear position: Code benchmarks must prioritize rigor in benchmark construction, reliability in evaluation, and reproducibility in release. To operationalize this position, we introduce a code benchmark guideline HOW2BENCH with 55 checklists. Finally, our further human study also exposed that the current issues not only stem from the significant effort required, but also from a lack of awareness regarding their importance.

Selecting a pretrained language model, or evaluating a fine-tuned one, for a specific application is a high-value decision, yet the public benchmarks used to make it are poorly suited: a generic benchmark need not reflect a particular sub-domain or sub-task, and its scores are suspect when its items have leaked into pretraining and are recalled rather than solved. We present CoEval, an open framework that supplies a trustworthy, task-specific signal through ensemble self-evaluation: from a task or domain description, a pool of models rotates through all three roles, teacher, student, and judge, to generate a fresh, contamination-free benchmark, answer it, and score one another, with no human labels or raters. Because every model also answers as a student, the responses are the data that weight each question by its discriminative power and each judge by its consensus with the panel. Where ground truth exists, CoEval recovers the true ranking and tracks objective correctness at \r{ho}=0.86, and the weighting recovers the gold ranking of thirteen models at Spearman 0.95. Reliability comes from panel composition, not size: this label-free weighting zeroes out broken judges and down-weights saturated questions, so neither distorts the ranking. Generated items show zero verbatim overlap with five public benchmarks, the panel cancels verbosity bias and precludes same-family self-preference, and rankings are domain-specific: three different models top four de-novo domains, so a generic leaderboard misdirects most practitioners. The same pipeline reruns on each model release, giving any team a contamination-free leaderboard for its application.

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism for measuring model progress and guiding deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of the our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.