Code Generation Benchmarks

AI coding agents powered by large language models can read codebases and produce functional code, but they routinely violate team-specific product decisions that are invisible in the source code alone. We introduce a controlled benchmark measuring decision compliance, the rate at which an AI coding agent follows established product, design, and engineering decisions, across 8 realistic software engineering tasks containing 41 weighted decision points. We compare a baseline configuration (Claude Code with codebase access only) against an augmented configuration that adds Brief, a product-context retrieval system providing spec generation, mid-build consultation, and retrieval of recorded decisions, persona pain points, customer signals, and competitive intelligence. On identical prompts and the same repository, the augmented configuration achieves 95% decision compliance versus 46% for the baseline, a 49 percentage point improvement. Per-decision analysis reveals that the baseline achieves 100% compliance on decisions visible in the codebase and 0-33% on decisions requiring product context, suggesting that product-context retrieval is a key driver of the improvement. We release the benchmark repository, all 16 pull requests, and scoring harness for independent reproduction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a broad spectrum of tasks, including natural language understanding, dialogue systems, and code generation. Despite evident progress, less attention has been paid to their effectiveness in handling declarative paradigms such as Answer Set Programming (ASP), to date. In this paper we introduce BLAST: The first dedicated benchmarking methodology and associated dataset for evaluating the accuracy of LLMs in generating ASP code. BLAST provides a structured evaluation framework featuring two novel semantic metrics tailored to ASP code generation. The paper presents the results of an empirical evaluation involving ten well-established graph-related problems from the ASP literature and a diverse set of eight state-of-the-art LLMs.

Large language models are rapidly evolving into interactive coding agents capable of end-to-end web coding, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only narrow slices of this capability, typically text-conditioned generation with static-correctness metrics, leaving visual fidelity, interaction quality, and codebase-level reasoning largely unmeasured. We introduce WebCompass, a multimodal benchmark that provides unified lifecycle evaluation of web engineering capability. Recognizing that real-world web coding is an iterative cycle of generation, editing, and repair, WebCompass spans three input modalities (text, image, video) and three task types (generation, editing, repair), yielding seven task categories that mirror professional workflows. Through a multi-stage, human-in-the-loop pipeline, we curate instances covering 15 generation domains, 16 editing operation types, and 11 repair defect types, each annotated at Easy/Medium/Hard levels. For evaluation, we adopt a checklist-guided LLM-as-a-Judge protocol for editing and repair, and propose a novel Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm for generation that autonomously executes generated websites in a real browser, explores interactive behaviors via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and iteratively synthesizes targeted test cases, closely approximating human acceptance testing. We evaluate representative closed-source and open-source models and observe that: (1) closed-source models remain substantially stronger and more balanced; (2) editing and repair exhibit distinct difficulty profiles, with repair preserving interactivity better but remaining execution-challenging; (3) aesthetics is the most persistent bottleneck, especially for open-source models; and (4) framework choice materially affects outcomes, with Vue consistently challenging while React and Vanilla/HTML perform more strongly depending on task type.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that test-time scaling can substantially improve model performance on complex tasks, particularly in the coding domain. Under this paradigm, models use a larger token budget during inference to generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. However, current evaluations primarily rely on competitive programming benchmarks, which may not capture the full range of reasoning abilities. In this work, we perform a systematic study of frontier reasoning models to understand their performance on real-world coding benchmarks. To gain more insights into the performance of such models, we devise a programmatic way to {\em automatically generate} coding tasks of arbitrary difficulty and structure from existing benchmarks. Using this framework, our analysis reveals that the structure of a reasoning trace, not just its contents, is a strong predictor of correctness. Motivated by this, we propose structured thought-trees as means to represent reasoning traces. To illustrate their use, we train a lightweight classifier on features extracted from thought-trees to predict trace correctness, and demonstrate that flagging and retrying structurally anomalous traces based on the extracted features yields consistent gains at lower complexity levels.

Selecting LLM-generated code candidates using LLM-generated tests is challenging because the tests themselves may be incorrect. Existing methods either treat all tests equally or rely on ad-hoc heuristics to filter unreliable tests. Yet determining test correctness requires knowing which codes are correct, creating a \emph{circular dependency}. Our key insight is that we need not determine test correctness at all: \emph{test votes should rank, not merely count}. What matters is not how many codes pass a test, but whether the test can \emph{distinguish} correct from incorrect code. We break the circular dependency via leave-one-out evaluation: hold out one test, rank codes by their aggregate scores on all remaining tests, and measure whether the held-out test's pass/fail pattern agrees with this ranking. We formalize this agreement as the leave-one-out AUC~(LOO-AUC) and prove that the expected LOO-AUC is proportional to each test's ability to separate correct code from incorrect code. Building on this, we propose \textbf{ACES}~(\textbf{A}UC \textbf{C}onsist\textbf{E}ncy \textbf{S}coring) with two complementary variants: ACES-C provides closed-form weights that provably approximate the oracle in expectation under a mild assumption on average test quality; ACES-O drops this assumption and iteratively optimizes a differentiable LOO-AUC objective. Both operate solely on the binary pass matrix with negligible overhead, and achieve state-of-the-art Pass@$k$ on multiple code generation benchmarks.

We introduce VectorGym, a comprehensive benchmark suite for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) that spans generation from text and sketches, complex editing, and visual understanding. VectorGym addresses the lack of realistic, challenging benchmarks aligned with professional design workflows. Our benchmark comprises four tasks with expert human-authored annotations: the novel Sketch2SVG task (VG-Sketch); a new SVG editing dataset (VG-Edit) featuring complex, multi-step edits with higher-order primitives; Text2SVG generation (VG-Text); and SVG captioning (VG-Cap). Unlike prior benchmarks that rely on synthetic edits, VectorGym provides gold-standard human annotations that require semantic understanding and design intent. We also provide a multi-task reinforcement learning baseline that jointly optimizes across all four tasks using rendering-based rewards. This baseline, built on GRPO with curriculum learning, trains a Qwen3-VL 8B model that achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models, surpassing much larger models including Qwen3-VL 235B and matching GPT-4o. We also introduce a VLM-as-a-Judge metric for SVG generation, validated through human correlation studies. Our evaluation of frontier VLMs reveals significant performance gaps, positioning VectorGym as a rigorous framework for advancing visual code generation.

Design-to-code translates high-fidelity UI designs into executable front-end implementations, but progress remains hard to compare due to inconsistent datasets, toolchains, and evaluation protocols. We introduce 1D-Bench, a benchmark grounded in real e-commerce workflows, where each instance provides a reference rendering and an exported intermediate representation that may contain extraction errors. 1D is short for one day, representing the efficient completion of design-to-code tasks in less than one day. Models take both as input, using the intermediate representation as structural cues while being evaluated against the reference rendering, which tests robustness to intermediate representation defects rather than literal adherence. 1D-Bench requires generating an executable React codebase under a fixed toolchain with an explicit component hierarchy, and defines a multi-round setting in which models iteratively apply component-level edits using execution feedback. Experiments on commercial and open-weight multimodal models show that iterative editing generally improves final performance by increasing rendering success and often improving visual similarity. We further conduct a pilot study on post-training with synthetic repair trajectories and reinforcement learning based editing, and observe limited and unstable gains that may stem from sparse terminal rewards and high-variance file-level updates. The data and scripts used in this study are available in an anonymized repository at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/d2c-benchmark-A9C4/.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for hardware and firmware code generation, but existing studies primarily evaluate functional correctness while largely overlooking security. However, LLM-generated code that appears functionally sound may embed security flaws which could induce catastrophic damages after deployment. This critical research gap motivates us to design a benchmark for assessing security awareness under realistic specifications. In this work, we introduce HardSecBench, a benchmark with 924 tasks spanning Verilog Register Transfer Level (RTL) and firmware-level C, covering 76 hardware-relevant Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entries. Each task includes a structured specification, a secure reference implementation, and executable tests. To automate artifact synthesis, we propose a multi-agent pipeline that decouples synthesis from verification and grounds evaluation in execution evidence, enabling reliable evaluation. We evaluate diverse LLMs and find that they often satisfy functional requirements while leaving security risks. We also find that security results vary with prompting. These findings highlight pressing challenges and offer actionable insights for future advancements in LLM-assisted hardware design. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/chenqirui2002/HardSecBench.

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.

API integration is a cornerstone of our digital infrastructure, enabling software systems to connect and interact. However, as shown by many studies, writing or generating correct code to invoke APIs, particularly web APIs, is challenging. Although large language models (LLMs) have become popular in software development, their effectiveness in automating the generation of web API integration code remains unexplored. In order to address this, we present WAPIIBench, a dataset and evaluation pipeline designed to assess the ability of LLMs to generate web API invocation code. Our experiments with several open-source LLMs reveal that generating API invocations poses a significant challenge, resulting in hallucinated endpoints, incorrect argument usage, and other errors. None of the evaluated open-source models was able to solve more than 40% of the tasks.

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

While LLMs have accelerated scientific code generation, comprehensively evaluating generated code remains challenging. Many benchmarks emphasize functional correctness or task completion, which is insufficient for code built on production HPC libraries, where solver selection, API conventions, memory management, parallel awareness, and performance also matter. We introduce PETSCAgent-Bench, a multidimensional benchmark and agent-based framework for assessing whether AI-generated scientific code uses a production HPC library as an expert would. A tool-augmented evaluator compiles, executes, and measures code and combines deterministic checks with LLM-based assessments in a 14-evaluator pipeline spanning five categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions. A2A and MCP enable black-box evaluation of compatible coding agents. Across realistic PETSc problems, frontier models generate readable, well-structured code but struggle with correctness on challenging problems and with library-specific conventions even when code compiles and runs---limitations that conventional pass/fail evaluation does not capture.

Translating natural-language descriptions of physical phenomena into executable simulation code requires both programming expertise and physical reasoning. Current large language models (LLMs) lack this combination: they frequently produce code that runs but simulates the wrong physics. We introduce PhysCodeBench, the first benchmark for this task, with 1,200 expert-validated examples spanning four physical domains. Its evaluation suite, PhysCodeEval, goes beyond executability and visual fidelity to measure physical correctness directly from the engine state via conservation-law residuals and expert-written assertions, and supports cross-engine evaluation to disentangle physics reasoning from API fluency. As a reference method, we propose the Self-Corrective Multi-Agent Refinement Framework (SMRF), which decouples physics-aware error correction from code generation through specialized agents. This design is motivated by our finding that targeted correction, rather than generic iterative refinement, is the key driver of physical accuracy. SMRF nearly triples the physical-assertion pass rate of the best proprietary baseline (70.6% vs.\ 23.8%) and retains its advantage under cross-engine transfer.