How to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation remains an open question.

How to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation remains an open question. Many benchmarks have been proposed, but they have two limitations, i.e., data leakage and lack of domain-specific evaluation.The former hurts the fairness of benchmarks, and the latter hinders practitioners from selecting superior LLMs for specific programming domains.To address these two limitations, we propose a new benchmark - EvoCodeBench, which has the following advances: (1) Evolving data. EvoCodeBench will be dynamically updated every period (e.g., 6 months) to avoid data leakage. This paper releases the first version - EvoCodeBench-2403, containing 275 samples from 25 repositories.(2)

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently achieved rapid progress, sparking numerous studies to evaluate their multi-modal capabilities. However, we dig into current evaluation works and identify two primary issues: 1) Visual content is unnecessary for many samples. The answers can be directly inferred from the questions and options, or the world knowledge embedded in LLMs. This phenomenon is prevalent across current benchmarks. For instance, GeminiPro achieves 42.7% on the MMMU benchmark without any visual input, and outperforms the random choice baseline across six benchmarks near 24% on average.

The rapid advancement of pre-trained language models (PLMs) has demonstrated promising results for various code-related tasks. However, their effectiveness in detecting real-world vulnerabilities remains a critical challenge. While existing empirical studies evaluate PLMs for vulnerability detection (VD), they suffer from data leakage, limited scope, and superficial analysis, hindering the accuracy and comprehensiveness of evaluations. This paper begins by revisiting the common issues in existing research on PLMs for VD through the evaluation pipeline. It then proceeds with an accurate and extensive evaluation of 18 PLMs on high-quality datasets that feature accurate labeling, diverse vulnerability types, and various projects. Specifically, we compare the performance of PLMs under both fine-tuning and prompt engineering, assess their effectiveness and generalizability across various training and testing settings, and analyze their robustness to a series of perturbations. Our findings reveal that PLMs incorporating pre-training tasks designed to capture the syntactic and semantic patterns of code outperform both general-purpose PLMs and those solely pre-trained or fine-tuned on large code corpora. However, these models face notable challenges in real-world scenarios, such as difficulties in detecting vulnerabilities with complex dependencies, handling perturbations introduced by code normalization and abstraction, and identifying semantic-preserving vulnerable code transformations. Also, the truncation caused by the limited context windows of PLMs can lead to a non-negligible number of labeling errors, which is overlooked by previous work. This study underscores the importance of thorough evaluations of model performance in practical scenarios and outlines future directions to help enhance the effectiveness of PLMs for realistic VD applications.

This study critically examines the methodological rigor in credit card fraud detection research, revealing how fundamental evaluation flaws can overshadow algorithmic sophistication. Through deliberate experimentation with improper evaluation protocols, we demonstrate that even simple models can achieve deceptively impressive results when basic methodological principles are violated. Our analysis identifies four critical issues plaguing current approaches: (1) pervasive data leakage from improper preprocessing sequences, (2) intentional vagueness in methodological reporting, (3) inadequate temporal validation for transaction data, and (4) metric manipulation through recall optimization at precision's expense. We present a case study showing how a minimal neural network architecture with data leakage outperforms many sophisticated methods reported in literature, achieving 99.9\% recall despite fundamental evaluation flaws. These findings underscore that proper evaluation methodology matters more than model complexity in fraud detection research. The study serves as a cautionary example of how methodological rigor must precede architectural sophistication, with implications for improving research practices across machine learning applications.