Program synthesis has been long studied with recent approaches focused on directly using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code.

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.

Program synthesis has been long studied with recent approaches focused on directly using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code. Programming benchmarks, with curated synthesis problems and test-cases, are used to measure the performance of various LLMs on code synthesis. However, these test-cases can be limited in both quantity and quality for fully assessing the functional correctness of the generated code. Such limitation in the existing benchmarks begs the following question: In the era of LLMs, is the code generated really correct? To answer this, we propose EvalPlus - a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with vast context windows offer new avenues for in-context learning (ICL), where providing many examples ("many-shot" prompting) is often assumed to enhance performance. We investigate this assumption for the complex task of code translation. Through a large-scale empirical study of over 90,000 translations, we systematically evaluate the impact of scaling in-context examples from zero-shot to many-shot configurations of up to 625 examples, with prompts spanning from approximately 100,000 to 800,000 tokens. Our findings reveal a "many-shot paradox": while static similarity metrics may modestly improve with more examples, functional correctness consistently peaks with few-shot prompting (5-25 examples). Providing substantially more examples often degrades this crucial functional performance. This study highlights that for code translation, the quality of a few well-chosen examples outweighs sheer quantity, challenging the universal efficacy of "more is better" for ICL and underscoring the task-dependent nature of optimal prompting strategies. Our results have significant implications for effectively leveraging LLMs in software engineering.

The remarkable progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents promising opportunities for Verilog code generation which is significantly important for automated circuit design. The lacking of meaningful functional rewards hinders the preference optimization based on Reinforcement Learning (RL) for producing functionally correct Verilog code. In this paper, we propose Signal-Aware Learning for Verilog code generation (QiMeng-SALV) by leveraging code segments of functionally correct output signal to optimize RL training. Considering Verilog code specifies the structural interconnection of hardware gates and wires so that different output signals are independent, the key insight of QiMeng-SALV is to extract verified signal-aware implementations in partially incorrect modules, so as to enhance the extraction of meaningful functional rewards. Roughly, we verify the functional correctness of signals in generated module by comparing with that of reference module in the training data. Then abstract syntax tree (AST) is employed to identify signal-aware code segments which can provide meaningful functional rewards from erroneous modules. Finally, we introduce signal-aware DPO which is optimized on the correct signal-level code segments, thereby preventing noise and interference from incorrect signals. The proposed QiMeng-SALV underscores the paradigm shift from conventional module-level to fine-grained signal-level optimization in Verilog code generation, addressing the issue of insufficient functional rewards. Experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on VerilogEval and RTLLM, with a 7B parameter model matching the performance of the DeepSeek v3 671B model and significantly outperforming the leading open-source model CodeV trained on the same dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/QiMeng-IPRC/QiMeng-SALV.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shown very impressive capabilities in code generation across many programming languages. However, even state-of-the-art LLMs generate programs that contains syntactic errors and fail to complete the given tasks, especially for low-resource programming languages (LRPLs). In addition, high training cost makes finetuning LLMs unaffordable with constrained computational resources, further undermining the effectiveness of LLMs for code generation. In this work, we propose SLMFix, a novel code generation pipeline that leverages a small language model (SLM) finetuned using reinforcement learning (RL) techniques to fix syntactic errors in LLM-generated programs to improve the quality of LLM-generated programs for domain-specific languages (DSLs). In specific, we applied RL on the SLM for the program repair task using a reward calculated using both a static validator and a static semantic similarity metric. Our experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our approach across multiple DSLs, achieving more than 95% pass rate on the static validator. Notably, SLMFix brings substantial improvement to the base model and outperforms supervised finetuning approach even for 7B models on a LRPL, showing the potential of our approach as an alternative to traditional finetuning approaches.

In recent years, LLMs have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation. However, while these models often generate functionally correct outputs, we still lack a systematic understanding and evaluation of their non-functional qualities. Existing studies focus mainly on whether generated code passes the tests rather than whether it passes with quality. Guided by the ISO/IEC 25010 quality model, this study conducted three complementary investigations: a systematic review of 108 papers, two industry workshops with practitioners from multiple organizations, and an empirical analysis of patching real-world software issues using three LLMs. Motivated by insights from both the literature and practitioners, the empirical study examined the quality of generated patches on security, maintainability, and performance efficiency. Across the literature, we found that security and performance efficiency dominate academic attention, while maintainability and other qualities are understudied. In contrast, industry experts prioritize maintainability and readability, warning that generated code may accelerate the accumulation of technical debt. In our evaluation of functionally correct patches generated by three LLMs, improvements in one quality dimension often come at the cost of others. Runtime and memory results further show high variance across models and optimization strategies. Overall, our findings reveal a mismatch between academic focus, industry priorities, and model performance, highlighting the urgent need to integrate quality assurance mechanisms into LLM code generation pipelines to ensure that future generated code not only passes tests but truly passes with quality.

Current evaluations of LLMs for code generation emphasize functional correctness, overlooking the fact that functionally correct solutions can differ significantly in algorithmic complexity. For instance, an $(O(n^2))$ versus $(O(n \log n))$ sorting algorithm may yield similar output but incur vastly different performance costs in production. This discrepancy reveals a critical limitation in current evaluation methods: they fail to capture the behavioral and performance diversity among correct solutions. To address this, we introduce a principled framework for evaluating the dynamic stability of generated code. We propose two metrics derived from opcode distributions: Static Canonical Trace Divergence (SCTD), which captures algorithmic structure diversity across generated solutions, and Dynamic Canonical Trace Divergence (DCTD), which quantifies runtime behavioral variance. Their ratio, the Behavioral Expression Factor (BEF), serves as a diagnostic signal: it indicates critical runtime instability when BEF $\ll$ 1 and functional redundancy when BEF $\gg$ 1. Empirical results on BigOBench and CodeContests show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant algorithmic variance even among functionally correct outputs. Notably, increasing sampling temperature improves pass@1 rates but degrades stability, revealing an unrecognized trade-off: searching for correct solutions in diverse output spaces introduces a "penalty of instability" between correctness and behavioral consistency. Our findings call for stability-aware objectives in code generation and new benchmarks with asymptotic test cases for robust, real-world LLM evaluation.

This paper introduces SecRepoBench, a benchmark to evaluate code agents on secure code completion in real-world repositories. SecRepoBench has 318 code completion tasks in 27 C/C++ repositories, covering 15 CWEs. We evaluate 28 standalone LLMs and 13 code agents across 3 state-of-the-art agent frameworks using our benchmark. We find that state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with generating correct and secure code completions. However, code agents significantly outperform standalone LLMs. We show that SecRepoBench is more difficult than the prior state-of-the-art benchmark. Finally, our comprehensive analysis provides insights into potential directions for enhancing the ability of code agents to write correct and secure code in real-world repositories.