cs.CYFeb 23, 2026

Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Authors: Michael Haman

Organizations: Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Can low-cost large language models (LLMs) take over the interpretive coding work that still anchors much of empirical content analysis? This paper introduces ContentBench, a public benchmark suite that helps answer this replacement question by tracking how much agreement low-cost LLMs achieve and what they cost on the same interpretive coding tasks. The suite uses versioned tracks that invite researchers to contribute new benchmark datasets. I report results from the first track, ContentBench-ResearchTalk v1.0: 1,000 synthetic, social-media-style posts about academic research labeled into five categories spanning praise, critique, sarcasm, questions, and procedural remarks. Reference labels are assigned only when three state-of-the-art reasoning models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1) agree unanimously, and all final labels are checked by the author as a quality-control audit. Among the 59 evaluated models, the best low-cost LLMs reach roughly 97-99% agreement with these jury labels, far above GPT-3.5 Turbo, the model behind early ChatGPT and the initial wave of LLM-based text annotation. Several top models can code 50,000 posts for only a few dollars, pushing large-scale interpretive coding from a labor bottleneck toward questions of validation, reporting, and governance. At the same time, small open-weight models that run locally still struggle on sarcasm-heavy items (for example, Llama 3.2 3B reaches only 4% agreement on hard-sarcasm). ContentBench is released with data, documentation, and an interactive quiz at contentbench.github.io to support comparable evaluations over time and to invite community extensions.

More in this topic

LLM-Assisted Annotation

Large language model-assisted annotation uses AI to label, classify, and structure data, often with human review to improve scale and consistency.

See all 202 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Oct 26, 2026

High Scores, Hidden Failures: Evaluating Codebook-Based LLM Content Analysis

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for codebook-based content analysis in computational social science, where codebooks translate theoretical concepts into labeling schemes. While prior work reports strong predictive performance, it remains unclear whether these systems produce reliable and robust text annotations. We conduct a large-scale empirical failure-mode analysis of LLM-based coding pipelines across four datasets and five models by systematically evaluating their stability, robustness, and conceptual validity under controlled perturbations, domain shifts, and optimization procedures. We uncover multiple failure modes that are largely invisible under standard metrics, showing that high aggregate scores frequently coexist with severe label-level disparities, instability across runs, domain sensitivity, and shifts in label interpretation. Importantly, these failure modes persist under widely used optimization strategies and remain largely invisible under standard metrics such as accuracy and micro-F1. Our results demonstrate that current LLM-based coding pipelines cannot be treated as stable measurement tools without targeted validation beyond aggregate performance.

Elena Senger, Yuri Campbell, Rob van der Goot +1

MaiNLP, Center for Information and Language Processing, LMU Munich & MCML, Germany · Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Germany · Department of Computer Science, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

LLM-Assisted AnnotationLLM ReliabilityLanguage Model Robustness
AskPDF
Oct 29, 2024

Can Language Models Replace Programmers for Coding? REPOCOD Says 'Not Yet'

Recently, a number of repository-level code generation benchmarks-such as CoderEval, DevEval, RepoEval, RepoBench, and LongCodeArena-have emerged to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) beyond standalone benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, would LLMs have similar performance in real world coding tasks as their performance in these benchmarks? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question, since these benchmarks consist of short completions, synthetic examples, or focus on limited scale repositories, failing to represent real-world coding tasks. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a Python code-generation benchmark containing complex tasks with realistic dependencies in real-world large projects and appropriate metrics for evaluating source code. It includes 980 whole-function generation tasks from 11 popular projects, 50.8% of which require repository-level context. REPOCOD includes 314 developer-written test cases per instance for better evaluation. We evaluate ten LLMs on REPOCOD and find that none achieves more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. In addition, we found that retrieval-augmented generation achieves better results than using target function dependencies as context.

Shanchao Liang, Yiran Hu, Nan Jiang +1

Purdue University

LLM Code GenerationCode Generation EvaluationCode Generation Benchmarks
AskPDF
Aug 12, 2026

Token Signatures of Code: Comparing Coding Behaviors Across Large Language Models

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on coding tasks has primarily focused on performance metrics such as pass@k. As LLMs continue to advance, many models now meet baseline performance requirements, reducing the discriminative power of performance-based evaluation alone. Yet a key question remains largely unexplored: how do LLMs differ in their coding behavior? We propose CLIC (Code Learning for Identification and Comparison), a visual analytics approach that characterizes LLM coding behavior through token-frequency analysis. CLIC represents each code sample as a feature vector of token frequencies and trains an interpretable decision tree to separate two LLMs' code sets. Beyond classification accuracy, we define two new metrics: robustness, which measures whether the two LLMs remain distinguishable as their most-discriminative tokens are progressively removed, and concentration, which measures whether the difference is driven by a few dominant tokens or spread across many. Interpreting numerous pairwise comparisons (across LLM pairs, tasks, and tokenization levels) and tracing the full analytical chain form an inherently multi-scale, hypothesis-driven exploration task. We therefore develop an interactive visual analytics system to navigate the comparison landscape, identify pairs of interest, and drill down into discriminative tokens and their code contexts. Case studies comparing 10 LLMs across 22 Kaggle ML tasks reveal actionable insights for LLM selection and prompt engineering.

Junpeng Wang, Yuzhong Chen, Menghai Pan +2

Visa Research

Code Language ModelsLLM EvaluationLLM Code GenerationLanguage Model FingerprintingVisual Analytics
AskPDF