Amidst therecent strides inevaluating LargeLanguage Models forCode (Code LLMs), existing benchmarks havemainly focused onthefunctional correctness of generated code, neglecting the importance of their computational efficiency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate functionally correct solutions but often fall short in code efficiency, a critical bottleneck for real-world deployment. In this paper, we introduce a novel test-time iterative optimization framework to address this, employing a closed-loop system where LLMs iteratively refine code based on empirical performance feedback from an execution sandbox. We explore three training strategies: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Experiments on our Venus dataset and the APPS benchmark show that SFT and DPO rapidly saturate in efficiency gains. In contrast, GRPO, using reinforcement learning (RL) with execution feedback, continuously optimizes code performance, significantly boosting both pass@1 (from 47% to 62%) and the likelihood of outperforming human submissions in efficiency (from 31% to 45%). Our work demonstrates effective test-time code efficiency improvement and critically reveals the power of RL in teaching LLMs to truly self-improve code efficiency.

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), particularly Code LLMs, have demonstrated impressive performance in code generation. Current research primarily focuses on the correctness of generated code, while efficiency remains less explored. Recent works have focused on modifying the initial version of the code to improve its efficiency. However, such refinements are limited by the algorithmic design and overall logic of the initial code, resulting in only incremental improvements. In contrast, when human developers write high-quality code, they typically begin by designing several potential solutions at the logical level, evaluating various algorithms and their complexities, and then proceeding to implement and optimize the solution. In this study, we introduce \tool: \uline{L}arge \uline{L}anguage \uline{M}odel for Code \uline{Effi}ciency, a novel framework that enables LLMs to generate code that balances both efficiency and correctness. Specifically, \tool divides the efficiency optimization process into two domains: algorithmic exploration in the logic domain and implementation optimization in the code domain. The correctness of the code is then guaranteed through a synthetic test case refinement process. This approach, which prioritizes efficiency before ensuring correctness, offers a new paradigm for efficient code generation. Experiments demonstrate that \tool consistently improves both efficiency and correctness, achieving new state-of-the-art performance in code efficiency benchmarks across various LLM backbones.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding and generating codes. Due to these capabilities, many recent methods are proposed to automatically refine the codes with LLMs. However, we should rethink that the refined codes (from LLMs and even humans) are not always more efficient than their original versions. On the other hand, running two different versions of codes and comparing them every time is not ideal and time-consuming. Therefore, in this work, we propose a novel method based on the code language model that is trained to judge the efficiency between two different codes (generated across humans and machines) by either classifying the superior one or predicting the relative improvement. We validate our method on multiple programming languages with multiple refinement steps, demonstrating that the proposed method can effectively distinguish between more and less efficient versions of code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable coding capabilities. However, assessing code generation based on well-formed properties and aligning it with developer preferences remains challenging. In this paper, we explore two key questions under the new challenge of code preference learning: (i) How do we train models to predict meaningful preferences for code? and (ii) How do human and LLM preferences align with verifiable code properties and developer code tastes? Furthermore, we discover the prohibitive costs and limitations of human-based code preference: despite spending 23.4 person-minutes on each task, 15.1 40.3% of tasks remain unsolved. Compared to model-based preference, human preference tends to be more accurate under the objective of code correctness, while being sub-optimal for non-functional objectives. Large Language Models (LLMs) for code (Chen et al., 2021; GitHub, 2023; Amazon Web Services, 2023) have become instrumental in modern software development. Code LLMs assist developers in various scenarios, from suggesting code completions and generating functional code based on user instructions to proposing complex code changes to resolve bug reports and feature requests. Instruction-tuned LLMs (Luo et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2024) are increasingly adept at generating functional code based on natural language instructions. However, evaluating the quality of LLM-generated code remains challenging, particularly regarding code correctness, efficiency, security, adherence to best practices, and alignment with developer preferences. Effectively and efficiently assessing LLM-generated code against these properties is crucial for both evaluation (Liu et al., 2023b) and preference optimization for code LLMs (Weyssow et al., 2024). Nevertheless, the subject of learning code preferences has been largely under-explored, motivating us to study code preferences systematically and train code preference models with new data and modeling methods. Following the established format in LLM-as-a-judge (Chiang et al., 2024), we define the code preference task as follows: Given a user query, a pair of two candidate code responses, and optionally a preference criterion, code preference is demonstrated by choosing one response over the other. Work done during a research internship at AWS AI Labs. Code execution: Code preference in another way can be confidently determined by execution statuses (Liu et al., 2023a). However, applying code execution to arbitrary programs poses challenges due to (i) setup complexity, (ii) code incompleteness, and (iii) execution overhead.

Despite advancements in evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for code synthesis, benchmarks have predominantly focused on functional correctness, overlooking the importance of code efficiency. We present Mercury, the first benchmark designated for assessing the code efficiency of LLM code synthesis tasks. Mercury consists of 1,889 programming tasks covering diverse difficulty levels alongside test case generators generating unlimited cases for comprehensive evaluation. Unlike existing benchmarks, Mercury integrates a novel metric Beyond@K to measure normalized code efficiency based on historical submissions, leading to a new evaluation indicator for code synthesis, which encourages generating functionally correct and computationally efficient code, mirroring the real-world software development standard. Our findings reveal that while LLMs demonstrate the remarkable capability to generate functionally correct code, there still exists a substantial gap in their efficiency output, underscoring a new frontier for LLM research and development.

Code generation models have increasingly become integral to aiding software development, offering assistance in tasks such as code completion, debugging, and code translation. Although current research has thoroughly examined the correctness of code produced by code generation models, a vital aspect, i.e., the efficiency of the generated code, has often been neglected. This paper presents EffiBench, a benchmark with 1,000 efficiency-critical coding problems for assessing the efficiency of code generated by code generation models. EffiBench contains a diverse set of LeetCode coding problems. Each problem is paired with an executable human-written canonical solution. With EffiBench, we empirically examine the capability of 21 Large Language Models (13 open-sourced and 8 closed-sourced) in generating efficient code. The results demonstrate that GPT-4-turbo generates the most efficient code, significantly outperforming Palm-2-chat-bison, Claude-instant-1, Gemini-pro, GPT-4, and GPT-3.5. Nevertheless, its code efficiency is still worse than the efficiency of human-written canonical solutions. In particular, the average and worst execution time of GPT-4-turbo generated code is 1.69 and 45.49 times that of the canonical solutions.

Improvements in the performance of computing systems, driven by Moore's Law, have transformed society. As such hardware-driven gains slow down, it becomes even more important for software developers to focus on performance and efficiency during development. While several studies have demonstrated the potential from such improved code efficiency (e.g., 2x better generational improvements compared to hardware), unlocking these gains in practice has been challenging. Reasoning about algorithmic complexity and the interaction of coding patterns on hardware can be challenging for the average programmer, especially when combined with pragmatic constraints around development velocity and multi-person development. This paper seeks to address this problem. We analyze a large competitive programming dataset from the Google Code Jam competition and find that efficient code is indeed rare, with a 2x runtime difference between the median and the 90th percentile of solutions. We propose using machine learning to automatically provide prescriptive feedback in the form of hints, to guide programmers towards writing high-performance code. To automatically learn these hints from the dataset, we propose a novel discrete variational auto-encoder, where each discrete latent variable represents a different learned category of code-edit that increases performance. We show that this method represents the multi-modal space of code efficiency edits better than a sequence-to-sequence baseline and generates a distribution of more efficient solutions.