Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.10264 v1 pith:5LL2BD22 submitted 2022-12-20 cs.LG cs.CLcs.SE

classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.SE
keywords coderobustnessgenerationmodelsevaluationrecodetasksbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code generation models have achieved impressive performance. However, they tend to be brittle as slight edits to a prompt could lead to very different generations; these robustness properties, critical for user experience when deployed in real-life applications, are not well understood. Most existing works on robustness in text or code tasks have focused on classification, while robustness in generation tasks is an uncharted area and to date there is no comprehensive benchmark for robustness in code generation. In this paper, we propose ReCode, a comprehensive robustness evaluation benchmark for code generation models. We customize over 30 transformations specifically for code on docstrings, function and variable names, code syntax, and code format. They are carefully designed to be natural in real-life coding practice, preserve the original semantic meaning, and thus provide multifaceted assessments of a model's robustness performance. With human annotators, we verified that over 90% of the perturbed prompts do not alter the semantic meaning of the original prompt. In addition, we define robustness metrics for code generation models considering the worst-case behavior under each type of perturbation, taking advantage of the fact that executing the generated code can serve as objective evaluation. We demonstrate ReCode on SOTA models using HumanEval, MBPP, as well as function completion tasks derived from them. Interesting observations include: better robustness for CodeGen over InCoder and GPT-J; models are most sensitive to syntax perturbations; more challenging robustness evaluation on MBPP over HumanEval.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 6 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Code-generating LLMs lose 20 to 40 percentage points in pass rate when task descriptions are ambiguous, incomplete, or contradictory.

  2. Energy-Aware Code Generation with LLMs: Benchmarking Small vs. Large Language Models for Sustainable AI Programming

    cs.SE 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    On 150 LeetCode problems, GPT-4.0 and DeepSeek-Reasoner beat three 3B-parameter models on correctness and speed; the 52% energy-efficiency claim counts any of three SLMs on correct outputs, not a per-model advantage.

  3. Adversarial Attack Classification and Robustness Testing for Large Language Models for Code

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Word-level adversarial changes in prompts, code, and comments degrade code-generation correctness more than sentence-level rewrites, but classification errors and missing error bars weaken the claim.

  4. Evaluating and Improving Robustness in Large Language Models: A Survey and Future Directions

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    LLM robustness research is organized into adversarial robustness, out-of-distribution robustness, and evaluation, with an accompanying GitHub collection of papers.

Pith tools