Code generation models have increasingly become integral to aiding software development.

Figure 7: Actual example of how an anchor function impacts the generated solution. In this section, we provide additional experimental details and results for the experiments in Section 3. We include additional details for anchoring (Appendix A.1), the availability heuristic (Appendix A.3), Filtering prompts for longer canonical solutions. However, all components of the prompts from Section 3.3.2 We plot the analogous add-var results in Figure 10 and include full numerical results in Table 7. In this section, we augment Section 3.3.3

As models become increasingly sophisticated, conventional algorithm benchmarks are increasingly saturated, underscoring the need for more challenging benchmarks to guide future improvements in algorithmic reasoning. This paper introduces OIBench, a high-quality, private, and challenging olympiad-level informatics dataset comprising 250 carefully curated original problems. We detail the construction methodology of the benchmark, ensuring a comprehensive assessment across various programming paradigms and complexities, and we demonstrate its contamination-resistant properties via experiments. We propose Time/Space Completion Curves for finer-grained efficiency analysis and enable direct human-model comparisons through high-level participant evaluations. Our experiments reveal that while open-source models lag behind closed-source counterparts, current SOTA models already outperform most human participants in both correctness and efficiency, while still being suboptimal compared to the canonical solutions. By releasing OIBench as a fully open-source resource (https://huggingface.co/datasets/AGI-Eval/OIBench), we hope this benchmark will contribute to advancing code reasoning capabilities for future LLMs.

As the quality of code generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) improves, their adoption in the software industry for automated code generation continues to grow. Researchers primarily focus on enhancing the functional correctness of the generated code while commonly overlooking its energy efficiency and environmental impact. This paper investigates the energy efficiency of the code generated by 20 popular LLMs for 878 programming problems of varying difficulty levels and diverse algorithmic categories selected from the LeetCode platform by comparing them against canonical human-written solutions. Although LLMs can produce functionally correct results in most cases, our findings show that the performance and energy efficiency of LLM-produced solutions are often far below those of human-written solutions. Among the studied LLMs, DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4o generate the most energy-efficient code, whereas Grok-2 and Gemini-1.5-Pro are among the least energy-efficient models. On average, human-generated canonical solutions are approximately 1.17 times more energy efficient than DeepSeek-v3, 1.21 times more energy efficient than GPT-4o, and over 2 times more energy efficient than Grok-2 and Gemini-1.5-Pro. For specific algorithmic groups such as dynamic programming, backtracking, and bit manipulation, LLM-generated code can consume up to 450 times more energy than human-generated canonical solutions.

Existing code generation benchmarks primarily evaluate functional correctness, with limited focus on code efficiency and often restricted to a single language like Python. To address this gap, we introduce EffiBench-X, the first multi-language benchmark designed to measure the efficiency of LLM-generated code. EffiBench-X supports Python, C++, Java, JavaScript, Ruby, and Golang. It comprises competitive programming tasks with human-expert solutions as efficiency baselines. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs on EffiBench-X reveals that while models generate functionally correct code, they consistently underperform human experts in efficiency. Even the most efficient LLM-generated solutions (Qwen3-32B) achieve only around \textbf{62\%} of human efficiency on average, with significant language-specific variations. LLMs show better efficiency in Python, Ruby, and JavaScript than in Java, C++, and Golang. For instance, DeepSeek-R1's Python code is significantly more efficient than its Java code. These results highlight the critical need for research into LLM optimization techniques to improve code efficiency across diverse languages. The dataset and evaluation infrastructure are submitted and available at https://github.com/EffiBench/EffiBench-X.git and https://huggingface.co/datasets/EffiBench/effibench-x.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to exhibit a memorization phenomenon in code generation: instead of truly understanding the underlying principles of a programming problem, they tend to memorize the original prompt and its solution together in the training. Consequently, when facing variants of the original problem, their answers very likely resemble the memorized solutions and fail to generalize. In this paper, we investigate this phenomenon by designing three evolution strategies to create variants: mutation, paraphrasing, and code-rewriting. By comparing the performance and AST similarity of the LLM-generated codes before and after these three evolutions, we develop a memorization score that positively correlates with the level of memorization. As expected, as supervised fine-tuning goes on, the memorization score rises before overfitting, suggesting more severe memorization. We demonstrate that common mitigation approaches, such as prompt translation and using evolved variants as data augmentation in supervised learning and reinforcement learning, either compromise the performance or fail to alleviate the memorization issue. Therefore, memorization remains a significant challenge in LLM code generation, highlighting the need for a more effective solution.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved high accuracy, i.e., more than 90% pass@1, in solving Python coding problems in HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, whether LLMs achieve comparable code completion performance compared to human developers? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question using existing manual crafted or simple (e.g., single-line) code generation benchmarks, since such tasks fail to represent real-world software development tasks. In addition, existing benchmarks often use poor code correctness metrics, providing misleading conclusions. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a code generation benchmark with 980 problems collected from 11 popular real-world projects, with more than 58% of them requiring file-level or repository-level context information. In addition, REPOCOD has the longest average canonical solution length (331.6 tokens) and the highest average cyclomatic complexity (9.00) compared to existing benchmarks. Each task in REPOCOD includes 313.5 developer-written test cases on average for better correctness evaluation. In our evaluations of ten LLMs, none of the models achieve more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. REPOCOD is available at https://github.com/lt-asset/REPOCOD