LLM Code Generation

Enterprise AI coding assistants incur substantial inference spend, and naive token-cost minimization often fails to reduce end-to-end cost once retries, escalations, and developer wait time are included. We present Task-to-Model Optimization (T2MO), a data-driven methodology for optimizing model selection in production coding workflows. We treat each developer session as a task that can be discovered, classified, graded for difficulty, benchmarked in a production-like harness, and routed to the cheapest model able to complete it within quality and latency constraints. The framework is a nine-stage pipeline spanning telemetry instrumentation, taxonomy discovery, difficulty grading, benchmark construction, candidate evaluation, optimal mix derivation, forecasting and version planning, staged routing deployment, and continuous governance. Unlike token-centric routing rules, our objective is cost per completed task, with failure escalation priced in explicitly. We show that this expected-completion-cost objective weakly dominates token-cost minimization under escalation, and we derive the routing boundary, the minimum pass rate a cheaper model must reach on a given cell to be worth deploying. Decisions are organized as a two-level hierarchy of task category difficulty tier, and per-cell displacement opportunities are aggregated into a traffic-weighted savings waterfall that ranks replacement candidates by realized dollar impact. The framework supports developer guidance, spend forecasting, and a staged transition from static policies to shadow-mode classifiers, verified cascades, and ultimately an intelligent router. We describe the methodology, optimization objective, evaluation protocol, and governance loop in a form suitable for production deployment and future empirical study.

Code performance optimization is a vital aspect of modern software development, as it enables faster response times and reduced resource usage. These optimizations require a deep understanding of low-level hardware details and the intricacies of parallel processing, making them challenging even for experienced developers. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), which are increasingly capable of generating and understanding code, there is growing interest in incorporating these models into automated code optimization processes. Traditionally, this automation involves transcribing the source code into a domain-specific representation that can be auto-tuned using grid search or machine learning algorithms, while adhering to strict rules and a limited set of feasible transformations to ensure verifiability. LLMs incorporate high-level code semantics and can thus perform transformations that go beyond verifiable automated optimizations. This paper investigates whether the traditional abstractions used in automated code optimization improve the performance and correctness of LLM-guided optimizations of parallel HPC applications. We evaluate this using the PolyBench benchmark suite and demonstrate that, in our evaluated setting, LLMs provided with specific optimization goals achieve better measured performance and validity rates when generating C code compared to creating computation pipelines and optimization schedules with established frameworks, suggesting that future development should explore alternative approaches for verifiable LLM-guided code optimization.

Code generated by LLMs can violate a developer's implicit intentions when given an ambiguous prompt, yet standard benchmarks measure only whether code passes its stated test. We introduce the Intent Violation Rate (IVR) and a 49-problem pilot benchmark derived from HumanEval+. Each problem strips implicit constraints from a clarified prompt and encodes them as hidden constraint tests. IVR measures the fraction of LLM-generated solutions that pass the stated (visible) tests yet fail hidden constraint tests that capture unstated intent. Evaluating Claude Sonnet 4.6 and OpenAI GPT 4.1, we find both pass over 92% of stated tests yet violate intent in over half of problems (54.5% and 63.5%), following a systematic, bimodal pattern consistent across both models. Out findings indicate that pass rates overstate how well generated code reflects developer intent.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit strong Python preferences when generating project-level code, but there is currently no systematic way to measure this behaviour across new models. To bridge this gap, we introduce LangChoiceBench, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity. LangChoiceBench covers 28 projects across seven software areas where Python is often a poor default. We evaluate 25 diverse LLMs and find that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models generally show stronger Python preference and lower language diversity. We further analyse 9,826 reasoning traces and find that most Python choices are automatic or driven primarily by ease, rather than explicit consideration of project requirements. In a smaller but important set of cases, models fabricate contextual support for choosing Python - a failure mode we call phantom evidence - or produce code that contradicts the language selected in their own reasoning.

Partial differential equations (PDEs) become actionable in science and engineering not as isolated formulae, but as executable workflows that connect modelling assumptions, governing equations, numerical solvers, diagnostics, and decisions. Large language models (LLMs) are beginning to support such workflows by linking natural language, symbolic mathematics, code, solver outputs, and feedback. Here we examine recent advances in LLM-assisted PDE research across three stages: the discovery and formulation of governing models, the generation and revision of executable numerical solvers, and the use of simulation feedback to support control, design, and optimization. Across these stages, current systems act primarily as workflow-level interfaces. Despite this progress, the field remains limited by the scarcity of high-quality datasets and benchmarks, especially for knowledge discovery and real-world applications, where expert annotation, executable problem construction, and task-level feedback require substantial domain effort. A further challenge is the persistent gap between simulation-based results and real-world scientific and engineering systems, which limits the direct transfer of numerical simulations, control policies, and optimized designs to practical settings. These challenges make LLM-assisted PDE workflows a critical testbed for developing scientific AI systems that can connect language, computation, physical constraints, and real-world decision-making.

Language models are widely used for generating and otherwise processing code (e.g., identifying code hallucinations, possible inputs, or predicting outputs); however, LLMs can make mistakes, which can be serious. One key issue is that models are trained on (still) largely human-written, and thus imperfect, code; it's not easy to find sufficiently large code corpora that are entirely free of bugs. Thus, other inference-time ways of reducing LLM errors, without additional training, are desirable. "Reasoning" or "thinking" modes, exposed as a togglable feature by hybrid reasoning models, do reduce errors; however, reasoning consumes additional resources. This paper asks if better performance can be achieved without always incurring the cost of reasoning. Human students of programming learn to avoid mistakes by (a) identifying them, (b) reflecting upon the cognitive lapses that led to them (essentially, "thinking through" the errors), (c) inferring general rules or lessons from these reflections, and (d) internalizing these lessons into rules. In tutorial sessions with an instructor, this is a common Socratic interaction. Examples of such internalizable rules might include the nugget "Before coding, restate the requirements to clarify them." Inspired by this process, this paper describes an approach where we first identify examples in which "thinking mode" in a (low-resource) LLM avoids errors. These errors, and their avoidance via "thinking" in the same LLM, are then examined by a bigger LLM to generate summary explanations; these are then summarized by a large LLM into brief advisory prompts. This approach works on many modest-sized models; in some cases, the "advisory prompts" thus learned can also be gainfully transferred to other models. We also present investigations into the nature of coding errors that language models make, and a characterization of when this approach can be helpful.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a strong ability to generate syntactically correct code from natural-language specifications. In this study, we explore how LLMs can be harnessed to automatically translate a neutral graph representation of fluid system models into executable code for two widely adopted simulation environments: the Python library WNTR and the Modelica Standard Library. We conduct a systematic comparison of ten state-of-the-art LLMs and six prompting strategies that differ in the contextual information supplied (e.g., code or documentation). For each configuration we assess the generated code using a suite of software-quality metrics and we validate the functional fidelity of the resulting simulation models by reproducing benchmark fluid system scenarios. Our findings offer concrete guidance for researchers and engineers seeking to integrate LLM-driven code synthesis into model-based design pipelines. While the best-performing configurations achieve acceptable syntactic quality, we observe substantial gaps remain in simulation fidelity.

Training large language models (LLMs) to write register-transfer level (RTL) requires large corpora of paired specifications and code, and such data is scarce enough that most public corpora are now synthesized. Synthesis provides scale but not correctness, and in two widely used RTL datasets only 24.4% and 53.5% of pairs pass generated functional tests. This raises the question of how much of such a corpus to keep and which part of it. Correctness alone is a poor answer. A pair that misbehaves in one corner case still shows valid syntax and interface conventions, and complex sequential designs are both harder to generate and harder to validate, so filtering by correctness leaves a corpus of short and simple modules. Correctness is also hard to obtain, since behavior leaves little trace on the surface in RTL, and validating an entire corpus only sorts pairs into passed and failed. We present RTLCurator, which learns a behavior-aware compatibility prior by contrasting each specification with implementations that fail simulation, and calibrates it to a new corpus using a small number of validated pairs. It then constructs the retained subset by balancing alignment, representation coverage, and RTL structural richness. On CodeV and RTLCoder, keeping 80% of the corpus this way improves on training with the full corpus across all reported metrics while validating only 10% of the pool, whereas ranking by the score alone falls below random selection and filtering the whole pool by simulation does no better.

Large language models benefit from elements in natural language, such as metaphors and analogies in training data and inference input to achieve generalisability across different domains. However, these language elements may also lead to unwanted behaviors when metaphorical expressions implicitly transfer inappropriate procedural patterns into new tasks. In this paper, we show that metaphorical instructions can induce analogical transfer of procedural mechanisms, thus steering code-generation models towards less efficient algorithms. We refer to this metaphor-induced effect as metaphorical algorithmic steering: a skill that is benign and plausible within its source domain transfers an abstract procedural schema into a programming task, causing the model to favor exhaustive search, full scans, or repeated reconstruction without explicitly mentioning the target algorithm. More broadly, this suggests that code-generation models can carry procedures that are appropriate in a task's background domain into the task's programming problem, where they can lead to unwanted outcomes. To study this phenomenon, we develop MASC (Metaphorical Algorithmic Steering for Code Generation), a framework that iteratively metaphorizes and refines benign skills to elicit low-efficiency code while remaining benign and task-relevant. Beyond behavioral evaluation, we study whether this phenomenon is detectable and mechanistically reflected in model representations. Our method achieves high detection rates for metaphorical skills and less-efficient implementations. We also find that metaphorical skills induce a hidden-state shift towards lower-efficiency procedural behavior prototypes. These results suggest that metaphorical algorithmic steering operates through the transfer of procedural patterns associated with metaphorical source scenarios rather than surface level metaphorical language alone.

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation in critical infrastructure, yet the security effect of domain-specific prompting is understudied. We present SecDrift, a benchmark measuring sector-conditioned security drift: the change in static-analysis vulnerability rates when prompts are conditioned on industry contexts versus neutral baselines. We evaluate 7 LLMs (6 producing analyzable code) across 8 CISA critical infrastructure sectors and 9 CWE categories with 5 replicates (5,355 evaluations), using a 5-dimension transformation with a matched-baseline condition that holds the task fixed while substituting only domain terminology. Industry prompts naively appear more secure (14.0% vs. 11.4%, -2.7pp), but the gap is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact p = 0.24, Cohen's h = -0.08) and is a composition artifact of two CWE categories: excluding CWE-502 and CWE-22 eliminates and slightly reverses it (+0.4pp, p = 1.00). A mixed-effects logistic regression confirms sector identity is not a moderator and localizes the only detectable condition effect to those two vulnerability types. 0 of 8 sectors show drift distinguishable from baseline, corrected or uncorrected (|h| < 0.15). A placebo on two non-CISA sectors (e-commerce, online education) reproduces the CISA industry rate almost exactly (10.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.63): the small pooled pattern reflects generic industry-framing specificity, not critical-infrastructure identity. In contrast, model selection has a large and consistent effect: among full-output models vulnerability rates range from 11.6% to 16.1%, and these differences persist across conditions. Model choice, not prompt framing, is the more reliable security lever. We release the framework, prompts, generated code, findings, human-validation verdicts, and analysis scripts.

Trapped-ion quantum computers rely on shuttling compilers, which cast an input algorithm into a sequence of ion-qubit movements within a given architecture. We present the first study in which a single frontier large language model (LLM), Claude Opus 4.7, generates and iteratively refines the full Python code of shuttling compilers from written specifications. We start with a compiler for (i) a linear segmented trap, extend it to (ii) a trap with junctions, and finally achieve efficient compilation for (iii) a broad class of connected trap graphs. The compilers for the more general cases are seeded with code from the previous ones. We benchmark the LLM-generated compilers against state-of-the-art hand-crafted ones using a common suite of quantum circuits. The number of shuttling timesteps is reduced by up to 76% for (i) and up to 39% for (ii). For the broad case (iii) of freely connected architectures, we find large variations in the required number of shuttling timesteps, depending on the connectivity. A densely connected, junction-rich architecture yields an order-of-magnitude reduction in shuttling timesteps compared to a corridor-like one. Repeating the complete generation and evaluation with a second frontier LLM, Claude Fable 5, reproduces these findings, with the Fable 5 compilers surpassing the hand-crafted ones more often on the largest circuits. Our results show that an unmodified frontier LLM can produce working, correct, and competitive shuttling compilers without additional manual algorithmic engineering, thus reducing the development time for new architectures from several months to a few days.

Large language models (LLMs) generate code from natural-language prompts, yet real-world prompts rarely provide complete specifications. When prompts leave input formats, error handling, or design decisions unspecified, LLMs fill these gaps with implicit assumptions that shape the generated code's behavior and correctness. Because these assumptions remain hidden, generated code may satisfy tests while violating developer intent. We present AssumptionMiner, a framework that makes implicit assumptions a first-class artifact of LLM-based code generation. In addition to code, AssumptionMiner produces an explicit assumption layer, a structured representation of inferred constraints and design decisions that developers can inspect, confirm, or revise. An AST-based dependency graph enables targeted regeneration of only the code affected by a revised assumption. We also introduce a benchmark of 180 ambiguous programming tasks with 676 annotated assumptions, including a human-verified subset for evaluating code localization. We evaluate assumption extraction, code localization, and assumption-guided regeneration. Across open-source LLMs, a confidence-weighted ensemble achieves an F1 score of 0.816 for assumption extraction, improving on the strongest offline baseline by 3.6x. On the human-verified localization benchmark, AST-guided localization identifies more precise code regions than keyword-based and whole-file baselines. During assumption revision, targeted regeneration modifies less code than non-targeted alternatives while exposing challenges in handling cascading edits. These results demonstrate that making assumptions explicit improves the transparency and controllability of LLM-based code generation.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, but their capabilities to produce correct, synthesizable hardware description language (HDL) code still remain to be properly benchmarked. Existing evaluations are primarily relying on pass@k metrics and lack proper end-to-end toolchain validation. This paper presents a reproducible benchmarking platform that evaluates open-source LLMs on Verilog RTL generation across 50 curated tasks consisting of combinational, sequential, finite state machine (FSM), and mixed designs. The pipeline consisting of constrained prompting, post-processing, and semantic-aware iterative refinement with waveform analysis, formal equivalence verification, and Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)-based repair validates the generated code via Verilator compilation and Icarus Verilog simulation. Across the 12 benchmarks and the 1,610 total runs evaluating three models of different sizes (Llama-3-8B, StarCoder2-7B, and TinyLlama-1.1B), the pipeline improved syntax validity from 0% to a 70.43% average and simulation pass rate to 51.8% across three open-source models. Most notably TinyLlama (1.1B parameters) achieved the highest individual syntax validity at 80.0%, with functional correctness comparable to the 8B model. The platform and dataset are open-source, enabling reproducible evaluation of generative AI for hardware design workflows.

Large language models (LLMs) and agents are now widely used tools in code development, with data typically sent to third-party cloud-based models. Their adoption in research using personal data is constrained by governance requirements that typically prohibit data transmission to external services. Locally deployable open-weight models offer an alternative since sensitive data never leave the local environment. We introduce an open-source framework for evaluating the efficacy of AI agents powered by open-weight LLMs on one of the most persistent bottlenecks in research on longitudinal population studies: data preparation. The framework comprises: a curated ground-truth dataset (cleaning scripts preparing six sweeps of data from a British cohort study), task definitions encompassing tasks such as category harmonization and multi-wave merging, and automated routines for evaluating the LLM-produced R code and outputted data. We benchmark LLMs across the (consumer grade) deployment spectrum to assess their efficacy in 20 data preparation tasks (creation of 102 variables). Current state-of-the-art, 31-35B parameter models almost saturated our benchmark ('average task completion' up to 87.9%). The performance of open-weight LLMs running on consumer-grade hardware shows promise of a viable path toward AI-assisted data preparation in governance-restricted research settings. Our framework is publicly available at: https://github.com/UCL-ARC/RRBench.

We present a structured large-language-model-driven workflow for automated multi-variable control design from dynamic process models. The workflow decomposes the design task into constrained code-generation steps: plant-interface construction, normalization, manipulated-variable controlled-variable (MV-CV) pairing, controller specification, closed loop simulation, scenario generation, performance evaluation and Bayesian-optimization (BO) based tuning. Generated artifacts are executed and validated before downstream tasks proceed, and failed artifacts are repaired using validation feedback. The proposed approach is demonstrated on a nonlinear gas-preheater benchmark with coupled pressure and temperature dynamics. The generated workflow produces a physically consistent decentralized PI (proportional-integral) feedback-feedforward control structure and an executable tuning environment. Bayesian optimization reduces the closed loop performance objective, which aggregates set-point tracking and disturbance-rejection errors for the controlled variables, by approximately 26.5% relative to the initial controller generated by the workflow, mainly through improved pressure-loop transient performance. This figure quantifies the automated tuning stage rather than a comparison against a manually designed controller. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using structured large-language-model-based code generation to construct executable control-design workflows, while also highlighting the need for broader validation on larger plantwide-control benchmarks.

Traditional query processing engines require continuous development and extensions to support new techniques and user requirements, and in some cases, entirely new systems must be built from scratch. However, these engines are difficult to extend due to their internal complexity, and building new systems demands significant engineering effort and cost. To address this, we demonstrate GenDB, a generative query engine that shifts query processing from manually engineered systems to query processing code generation driven by Large Language Models (LLMs). An early prototype of GenDB uses LLM agents to generate instance-optimized query execution code tailored to specific data, workloads, and hardware resources. This prototype suits offline code generation for repetitive, templated queries, since the upfront generation cost amortizes over many executions and correctness can be ensured through extensive fuzz testing and manual inspection. For ad-hoc queries, GenDB can work with a traditional DBMS in a hybrid architecture: the DBMS handles one-off queries, while GenDB speeds up frequent SQL templates. Our demonstration allows users to (1) visually and interactively explore how GenDB analyzes workloads, profiles hardware resources and underlying data, produces query plans, generates code based on them, and finally uses an optimizer to iteratively achieve a correct and efficient implementation; (2) use visual inspection and analysis to gain qualitative insights into why GenDB produces code that achieves significantly better performance than state-of-the-art query engines on two benchmarks: TPC-H and a newly constructed benchmark designed to reduce potential data leakage from LLM training data; and (3) upload their own data and queries to explore GenDB with different LLMs and query patterns.

Large language models can generate C code from natural-language descriptions, but resulting programs often contain security vulnerabilities and compilation errors, posing risks for embedded and resource-constrained systems. This work investigates how feedback and retrieval improve reliability of LLM-generated C code. We present an analysis-and-repair workflow that combines compilation diagnostics, CodeQL static analysis, and KLEE symbolic execution with retrieval of prior repair patterns for iterative refinement. Evaluated on 5,000 C programming tasks exercising embedded relevant vulnerabilities, baseline models show substantial reliability gaps, with compilation failure rates up to 46% and security defect rates up to 49%. Our approach improves both metrics. For CodeLlama 7B, security defect rates decrease from 49% to 19% and total CodeQL errors drop from 15,088 to 2,463 (83.7%). For DeepSeek Coder 1.3B, compilation failures are reduced from 42% to 22% and security defects from 35% to 15%. These results show that integrating lightweight analysis tools can improve the safety of LLM-generated code for embedded development.

Mined code corpora are abundant but uncontrolled: a snippet's semantics, surface "messiness," and difficulty are whatever the wild contained; there is no known-optimal reference to grade against; and any public sample may already sit in a model's training set. We present Spaghetti Architect, a tool that mints code datasets with the control such corpora lack. An anti-optimization transpiler maps a clean, language-agnostic JSON intermediate representation to deliberately redundant, fully-flattened programs in five languages (Python, JavaScript, Go, Java, C++); every program is compiled, run, and checked against a reference oracle, so each instance is correct by construction. The clean IR is a known-optimal reference, messiness is dialed by strictly-nested anti-pattern profiles, each instance is labelled along two orthogonal difficulty axes, intrinsic (problem size) and incidental (presentation at fixed semantics), and contamination is resisted by minting fresh variants from a private held-out seed. We give construct-validity evidence that the quality order moves established complexity and readability metrics, and report baselines on a four-model open ladder: exact match rises with scale, and the intrinsic knob collapses arithmetic-aggregation accuracy of even the strongest model to zero. Further, development-set scores equal freshly re-minted held-out counterparts within $|Δ|\le 0.012$ (comprehension) and $\le 0.011$ (refactoring); on identical programs, refactoring equivalence ($0.73 \rightarrow 0.99$) is scale-invariant while output prediction collapses; and ablating the generator's self-annotations shows they inflate the weakest model an order of magnitude more than the strongest ($-0.173$ vs $-0.017$): the annotated ladder resolves one of three adjacent pairs where the unannotated resolves all three. Open source (MIT), dependency-free, archived under a persistent DOI.

Large language models now write a growing share of the world's code, increasingly inside agents and serving systems that compile, execute, or dispatch generated code without line-by-line review. This works well for mainstream languages but remains brittle for low-resource programming surfaces such as domain-specific languages, custom library APIs, and command-line tools. Even under grammar-constrained decoding, a model can still produce references invalid in the current environment: a buffer never declared, a column absent from the schema, a function the library does not provide, or an unsupported CLI option. This paper introduces decode-time grammars: grammar fragments instantiated during generation from a runtime environment Gamma. A region-specific policy selects a fragment for each hole, and a tightening operator replaces open reference positions with Gamma-typed slots whose candidates are exactly the names, fields, APIs, or options available at that point. Newly generated declarations enter Gamma before later regions are decoded, so the constraining grammar can depend on the prefix already generated. This ensures not only grammatical correctness but also semantic correctness, by preventing references to undefined symbols. We formalize grammar fragments as environment-indexed grammars ordered by refinement, prove No-Ghost soundness for Gamma-slotted fragments, show that refinement preserves this support-set guarantee, and characterize the boundary of mask-enforceable properties. We implement the approach in gproj with offline grammar induction and online policy resolution. Across TileLang, SQL, and P4, with models from 0.6B to 236B parameters, gproj eliminates ghost references by construction at moderate overhead over standard constrained decoding.

Developers frequently write uninformative git commit messages such as "fix" or "update stuff", degrading the value of version-control history for code review, debugging, and onboarding. We present CommitLLM, a three-stage pipeline that generates concise, Conventional Commits-compliant messages from code diffs using a fine-tuned small language model. The system combines (1) QLoRA fine-tuning of Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 on the CommitPackFT dataset, (2) constrained decoding to enforce brevity, and (3) deterministic post-processing to strip conversational artifacts and enforce format. On a 50-sample evaluation, CommitLLM achieves 98% format compliance (vs. 22% for vanilla Mistral), reduces average output length from 154.8 to 37.9 characters, and improves LLM-as-a-Judge scores from 1.97 to 3.68 out of 5. Notably, the post-processing layers contribute more to quality improvement than the fine-tuning itself, suggesting that for structured-output tasks, treating the LLM as a component in a deterministic pipeline is more effective than optimizing the model alone. The entire system runs on a single consumer GPU (NVIDIA T4, 16 GB VRAM).

We report on CoreForge, an experience in using large language models (LLMs) to build an unweighted MaxSAT solver from research papers rather than from an existing solver codebase. The project focuses on unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT algorithms and follows an iterative workflow that combines paper discussions with ChatGPT, implementation through Codex prompts, and repeated LLM-assisted code audits and revisions. Although the codebase implements several algorithms and solver components, our evaluation focuses on configurations that combine core-guided optimization, lightweight preprocessing, core minimization, integration with integer linear optimization backends, and a new core-sequence lookahead approach. Our experience suggests that LLMs can support solver implementation from papers, while requiring external validation, benchmarking, and human guidance. In our experiments, fuzzing and MaxSAT Evaluation instances did not reveal wrong answers in the tested configurations, although performance remains below the best hand-engineered MaxSAT solvers. We summarize what worked, what remained difficult, and the lessons for future LLM-assisted solver development.

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform differently on identical programming tasks when prompted in different natural languages, a phenomenon known as language bias. While this behavior has been widely studied for general text generation, its impact on code generation quality and programming conventions remains largely unexplored. We investigate how the language used to describe programming tasks affects the source code generated by GPT-4o mini, DeepSeek, and Claude. Our study comprises 460 coding tasks spanning Python (230) and Java (230). We translate and manually curate the original English prompts into Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, and Italian while preserving their technical meaning. We evaluate the generated code using multiple dimensions, including functional correctness through test pass rates, structural quality using established code metrics, issues detected by static analysis tools, and lexical characteristics such as the language used in identifiers and comments. Our results show that (i) English prompts do not consistently produce the best functional correctness or code quality, (ii) the impact of prompt language depends on both the programming language and the LLM, and (iii) generated code frequently mixes English with the prompt language in comments and string literals. These findings provide the first curated multilingual benchmark for studying language bias in code generation and offer insights for developing more robust multilingual code generation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have made automated heuristic design (AHD) increasingly practical by generating executable heuristic code from task descriptions and evaluator feedback. Yet under a limited query and evaluation budget, search efficiency depends critically on a pre-generation decision. Before each LLM query and black-box evaluation, the system must choose which archived heuristics to reuse as parents and which generation operator should transform them. Existing methods typically choose such actions with predefined rules, leaving the expected outcome of each concrete operator-parent action only indirectly modeled. Therefore, we propose \emph{\fullmethod{}} (\method{}), a surrogate-guided action-selection module for operator-parent selection in LLM-based AHD. \method{} guides the LLM code-generation process by scoring pre-generation actions with two complementary surrogates. Specifically, a transition surrogate is proposed to predict the latent distribution of the child representation induced by an operator-parent action, while an instance-conditioned utility surrogate is proposed to estimate the expected performance of sampled child latents. Moreover, we propose an uncertainty-aware acquisition rule that combines predicted utility, utility uncertainty, and transition uncertainty to select the next LLM generation action. Across a diverse heuristic-design suite, \method{} is competitive with strong LLM-AHD baselines, and ablation and action-selection analyses suggest that its behavior goes beyond simple archive ranking or fixed operator preferences.

The growing adoption of local inference frameworks such as Ollama has made it increasingly common for developers to run large code models on laptops and other resource-constrained hardware. In these settings, post-training quantization is essential for reducing memory footprint and enabling practical deployment, yet its impact on generated code remains insufficiently understood. We empirically evaluate six state-of-the-art quantization methods (GPTQ, AWQ, QuIP#, AQLM, BitsAndBytes, and GGUF) on two representative large code model families, Qwen2.5-Coder and CodeLlama, using the multilingual McEval and CoderEval benchmarks for Python and Java. We assess functional correctness (pass@1) together with maintainability, reliability, security, and structural complexity. We also introduce a novel analysis of robustness under varying prompt complexity, characterized by Shannon entropy and token length. Our results show that quantization techniques differ meaningfully in their impact on correctness and code quality. AQLM consistently matches or exceeds the full-precision baseline, whereas QuIP# exhibits the largest correctness degradation, particularly on complex prompts. Security attributes remain stable across models, benchmarks, and programming languages, while robustness to prompt complexity varies across techniques. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting quantization strategies for deploying large code models on resource-constrained hardware and highlight the importance of evaluating quantized models beyond functional correctness.

Generated tokens are a direct driver of the cost, latency, and energy of generative AI (GAI) code editing. We show the format of feedback is a lever on all three. We compare two deliveries of the same requested changes: a holistic prompt (control) versus the structured, line-anchored export of FileMark (treatment). FileMark is a VSCodium extension for inline comments on any file. In a paired experiment line anchoring cut generated tokens by 22% (Claude Opus) and 58% (Claude Sonnet), reaching 24%-80% on files of 100 lines or more, with four of seven models generating significantly fewer tokens after multiple-testing correction. Correctness rose where models had headroom: +2.0 points pooled and +5 to +7 points for three of five local models. An exploratory experiment in which the harness, not the GAI model, applies function-level patches shows the correctness benefit grows further when the edit-application burden is lifted: local-model correctness on 100+ line files roughly triples under anchoring. Line-anchored feedback reduces what stronger models spend and improves what weaker models get right.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely reported to homogenize human expression and thought. However, I argue that convergence in language need not imply convergence in ideas, and existing evidence rarely distinguishes between the two. I demonstrate this through a study of software development, where AI assistants have diffused fastest and where syntax can be readily separated from semantics (conceptual approach or intent). Using Kaggle contest submissions from 2019 to mid-2026, I first document convergence toward the random seed value 42, consistent with LLMs reinforcing a longstanding programming-culture convention associated with Douglas Adams' comedy novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I then measure homogenization in code syntax and approach more generally, quantifying within-contest code submission similarity using term-frequency-inverse-document-frequency (TF-IDF) n-gram representations, which capture surface syntax, and Voyage code-3 retrieval embeddings, which capture intent and approach. Submissions have become more alike in literal syntax, but I find no evidence of homogenization in approach or intent. I conclude that shared AI tools are homogenizing how Kaggle contestants express their solutions, not the problem-solving strategies they employ.

Large language models (LLMs) write Unity C# for game scenes. Yet nearly all demonstrations rest on an iterative repair loop that regenerates code until it compiles, conflating what the model writes with what the loop fixes. We remove the loop and evaluate a single pass, where the first draft is final. This isolates the model's parametric knowledge, the most stringent test of unaided generation. Models instantiate Goal Playable Concepts, playable counterparts of goal patterns, across 10,400 generations (four open-weight models, 7B--30B; two generation modes; four intermediate-representation (IR) conditioning levels; 26 goal patterns; 20 seeds). None compiled into a runnable scene, leaving no survivorship bias. To understand how the generated C# scripts fail, we categorize the 99 error codes behind 90{,}673 compiler-error occurrences as Grounding (invented or misused Unity types and APIs) or Hygiene (structural defects needing no Unity knowledge). The split differs sharply by goal pattern (e.g., Stealth fails mostly on invented engine references; Capture on plain C# structure). Larger models, stricter IRs, and different generation modes move the errors but never yield a compiling scene. The bottleneck is missing engine-specific knowledge. The census orders goal patterns by that demand, showing designers where single-pass generation breaks.

Analytical workloads operating on data stored in external database systems face a fundamental bottleneck: data access is guarded entirely by the database driver, like JDBC or ODBC, forcing all reads through query execution and other driver layers that are not designed for bulk columnar analytics. We present Jailbreak, an approach that bypasses the database engine entirely by reading storage files directly and materializing data as in-memory columnar buffers. Jailbreak's key insight is that database file formats, while complex, are fully specified by their source code and documentation, artifacts that Large Language Models (LLMs) can ingest to regenerate operator-specific table reading components without human-engineered parsing logic. Jailbreak leverages LLM-assisted code synthesis for database storage decoding, turning a traditionally opaque format into a directly queryable artifact. We evaluate Jailbreak on PostgreSQL and MySQL storage files, targeting analytical snapshot scenarios common in read replicas and offline processing pipelines. The generated reader produces Apache Arrow buffers consumable directly by most of the widely known query engines, including DuckDB, Apache Spark, and GPU-accelerated frameworks such as cuDF and Spark RAPIDS. We validate correctness against JDBC/ODBC-based baselines using the TPC-H benchmark across all query results, and demonstrate significant performance improvements in end-to-end analytical throughput, achieving up to 27x speedups. Our results showcase that LLM-assisted storage reader synthesis is a viable and generalizable methodology for breaking data lock-in across database systems, with applications beyond PostgreSQL and MySQL for any system whose file format is available to the LLM from documentation or source code.

Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions. A popular fix has the model write its own tests and repair until they pass, but the source of the gain is unclear: does it come from the tests merely existing, or from their grounding in a specification of what the code should do? We isolate this factor. Holding the tester, test budget, and repair loop fixed, we change a single prompt line that controls whether the tester receives the spec as a checklist of rules. The baseline is strong: it is already told to probe invalid inputs and edge cases. Grounding the tests in the spec produces correct code +38 percentage points more often than this baseline across three Claude tiers (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8), and +36 points on a held-out set. Grounding, not test quantity, is the primary driver: doubling the test budget barely helps, and combining eight independent ungrounded suites plateaus far below grounding. An ablation isolates the spec's content, not its format: given the spec as a plain paragraph the tester recovers 27 of 30 bugs, but asked to plan tests without the spec it recovers only 2 of 30. The effect survives stronger baselines: a property-based generator catches 28 of 30 bugs but invents out-of-spec requirements, and an AlphaCodium-style loop only matches the baseline. It replicates across vendors (GPT-5.3-codex +28, Gemini 3.5 Flash +19), with a task-level sign test over 18 tasks significant at p=0.002. Grounding improves both sensitivity and precision: it catches more real bugs and wrongly rejects far less correct code, cutting the false-alarm rate from 33% (68% against a Python standard-library oracle) to 0%. On well-specified algorithmic problems it neither helps nor hurts.

Large language models can generate plausible quantum code, but it is unclear whether they can reliably target the specific software development kit (SDK) version requested by the user. We study this problem as API drift and introduce quantum-api-drift, a benchmark for measuring version fidelity, defined here as execution success on the requested SDK version, cross-version compatibility, failure modes, and documentation-guided repair in LLM-generated quantum SDK code. We instantiate the benchmark with Qiskit, a representative quantum SDK that underwent substantial interface changes across v0.43, v1.3, and v2.0. We evaluate 17 models on 50 tasks with 3 samples per prompt, yielding 450 generated samples and 1,350 executions per model. Sixteen models are tested in a matched REST API setting with a 1024-token output cap, while GPT-5.4 (Codex CLI) is reported separately as a reference configuration. Across the 16 matched REST models, diagonal Pass@1 ranges from 0.02 to 0.85. Claude Opus 4.7 is strongest on v0.43 and v2.0, while Grok 4.20 is strongest on v1.3 at 0.513. Error profiles differ systematically by model strength: weaker models fail mainly with broken imports, while stronger models more often reach deprecation-level failures. Documentation-guided repair succeeds for 0.19 to 0.59 of repair attempts overall and is consistently much more effective for migration to v2.0 than to v1.3. The benchmark artifacts are publicly available at https://github.com/arasyi/quantum-api-drift. These results show that version alignment is a distinct evaluation axis for quantum code generation and that API drift remains only partly recoverable even with migration guidance.