Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes. We present a large-scale, execution-grounded evaluation of 9 openly accessible LLMs specialized for coding on 2,707 free LeetCode problems across 12 programming languages. Our corpus contains 325,343 problem-model-language jobs, each linked to prompt metadata, extracted code, LeetCode execution outcomes, and static-analysis signals. The results show that current open models remain far from the human acceptance reference: the best model, Yi-Coder-9B-Chat, reaches 23.64% mean correctness, compared with a 57.2% human acceptance baseline. Rankings are also slice-dependent: Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct is strongest on hard problems and distinct-problem coverage, while Gemma-2-27B-IT achieves the highest all-language lint pass rate. Failure analysis shows that compile errors account for 63.25% of non-accepted best submissions, indicating that many failures occur before semantic correctness can be tested. Static quality further diverges from functional correctness. Together, these findings show that multilingual, artifact-preserving evaluation reveals tradeoffs hidden by single-language or single-metric leaderboards.
This paper introduces Code Bench, a benchmark capable of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) concise code generation abilities in 60 programming languages. Based on code golf, a recreational programming competition focused on minimal character or byte solutions, the benchmark provides a distinctive measure of LLMs ability to produce efficient, concise code. Unlike existing benchmarks limited by fixed problem sets and language coverage, CodeGolf Bench leverages the code.golf platform to provide new problems and live human performance baselines. Evaluation of nine LLMs on Python and C++ tasks demonstrates that reasoning models significantly outperform non-reasoning models, achieving best average percentile of 70.97%. This performance gap is particularly pronounced in C++, highlighting reasoning's importance for languages with strict syntax requirements. Non-reasoning models struggle more with efficiency optimization across both languages, with best percentiles significantly lower than reasoning counterparts. CodeGolf Bench offers a dynamic framework for evaluating LLM code generation capabilities against evolving human performance on code golf.
Despite strong performance in competitive programming, the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting human learning in the same setting remains largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce UOJ-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate not only the problem-solving ability of LLMs, but also their ability to identify errors in human-written code -- a crucial educational activity traditionally supported by running test cases over online judge systems. UOJ-Bench consists of three distinct tasks: code generation, code hacking, and code repair, all constructed from real-world code submissions on the Universal Online Judge (UOJ) and evaluated through UOJ's native judging infrastructure. Our results show that under one-shot evaluation, even the strongest models fail to identify errors in more than 50% of a set of submissions that have been found to be incorrect by UOJ users. While test-time scaling improves success rates to above 90%, the substantial computational costs incurred from model inference limit its practicality for large-scale deployment. Despite these limitations, we find that the best-performing models under test-time scaling can uncover errors in over 5% of full-score submissions across roughly 30 problems, suggesting that frontier LLMs can already provide complementary signals beyond standard judging systems.
Run-level pass rate overstates retry-free coverage by up to 17.8 percentage points -- and the gap is largest precisely for mid-performing systems. We investigate this accuracy--stability relationship in large language model (LLM) evaluation for deterministic text-conditioned generation, using programming tasks as a concrete testbed. Standard code-generation benchmarks emphasize single-run accuracy or eventual success under repeated sampling, but many deployment settings also require stability: consistent outcomes across repeated invocations under the same task description. We present a repeated-run evaluation protocol with metrics for run-level accuracy, retry-free coverage, and per-problem variability. On a recency-based benchmark of 100 LeetCode-style problems, we evaluate 16 models from five provider families under two prompt templates with five repeated runs per problem, yielding 16,000 evaluation instances. Although run-level pass rate and perfect stability rate are strongly correlated (r=0.985), pass rate consistently exceeds retry-free coverage -- a gap that reaches 17.8 percentage points and reverses model rankings even among closely matched systems. Prompt effects are model-dependent rather than uniformly beneficial. These results suggest that repeated-run stability analysis is a necessary complement to conventional accuracy reporting for deterministic text-conditioned generation tasks.