Skip to content

CodeAssay: A Multi-Metric Benchmark with Audited Ground Truth for LLM Code Generation

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 24 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

These findings show that reliable evaluation of LLM-generated code requires validated ground truth, protected tests, and multiple explicitly interpreted measures, and that CodeAssay provides a reproducible basis for evidence-based model evaluation in AI-augmented software development.

Abstract

Large Language Models are increasingly evaluated for code generation using test-based benchmarks. The validity of such evaluations depends on the reliability of their references and tests, while test-based correctness captures only part of the observable properties of generated code. We present CodeAssay, a taxonomy-first benchmark of 185 Python tasks across ten software-engineering categories. It combines audited ground truth, public tests for generation and repair, hidden tests for grading, mutation-based test-suite validation, and selected code-property measures. Regrading fixed model outputs after the audit changed 170 of 1,890 correctness labels (9.0%) and increased the measured best-to-worst model spread from 11.9 to 23.7 percentage points, although aggregate correctness remained nearly unchanged. The complete and hidden test suites achieved mutation scores of 82.6% and 74.8%, respectively. Across seven proprietary LLMs, standard-prompt correctness ranged from 77.3% to 98.9%, with significant differences in 12 of 21 model pairs. On the 120 tasks solved by all 14 model-prompt configurations, no model performed best across all selected code properties. A security-focused prompt produced no significant change in correctness or consistent reduction in the selected static-analysis findings, while increasing program length and cyclomatic complexity across all models. These findings show that reliable evaluation of LLM-generated code requires validated ground truth, protected tests, and multiple explicitly interpreted measures. CodeAssay provides a reproducible basis for evidence-based model evaluation in AI-augmented software development.

View source

Similar papers

Conference Open access 2026

AutoSUIT Bench - Automated Security UnIt Test Benchmark for LLM Coding

Upon benchmarking against LLMs, it is found that functionality pass rate is consistently higher than vulnerability pass rate for all programming languages, highlighting the necessity of vulnerable code benchmarks with larger CWE coverage.

Samuel Osebe, Fan Yang, Junyi Li et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

On the risk of coding before testing: An empirical study on LLM-based test generation workflow

This paper introduces and empirically study the phenomenon of error propagation, where faults in generated code are systematically replicated in associated test artifacts, and examines whether LLM-generated code biases the generation of subsequent tests.

Michael Konstantinou, Florian Tambon, Mike Papadakis · 1 citation
#software testing Preprint Aug 2026

Benchmarking the Titans: A Multi-Dimensional Empirical Evaluation of LLM Code Generation Quality in the .NET Ecosystem

An automated, multi-dimensional evaluation framework for C# code generation, applying it to four state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok is presented and a substantial gap between correctness and quality attributes is revealed.

Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Ghalandarian, Majid Bazargani, Masoumeh Taromirad · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

GateTruth: Auditing the Rigor of RTL Design Benchmarks via Mutation Testing

GateTruth, a mutation-testing engine and methodology for auditing RTL benchmark testbench rigor, is introduced and it is argued mutation-kill certification should become a standard reporting requirement for RTL-generation benchmarks generally.

Meet Bhadra · 0 citations
Book Open access Jul 2026

Evaluating and Improving the Quality of LLM-Generated Code

This tutorial introduces a reusable, end-to-end evaluation pipeline grounded in empirical software engineering practices, focusing on post-generation validation rather than prompt design, allowing for validating AI-generated code in modern development workflows.

Glaucia Melo, Jessica Pourleyli, Genevieve Caumartin et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Jun 3, 2026

MIT researchers teach AI models to interpret charts

The new ChartNet training dataset could improve the accuracy of vision-language models that help analyze business trends or interpret scientific figures.

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Jul 14, 2026

Helping AI models to meet the real world

Through research and entrepreneurship, Professor Devavrat Shah is helping to design methods that can handle constant decision-making using limited computational resources.