Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

MHPP: Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Beyond Basic Code Generation

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 2405.11430 v3 pith:WRO4JY3B submitted 2024-05-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords mhppllmscodegenerationlimitationscapabilitieshumanevallanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. For instance, GPT-4o has achieved a 91.0\% pass rate on HumanEval. However, this draws into question the adequacy of existing benchmarks in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation capabilities. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 210 unique human-curated problems. By focusing on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, MHPP gauges LLMs' abilities to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and apply coding knowledge effectively. Initial evaluations of 26 LLMs using MHPP showed many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. Moreover, MHPP highlighted various previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs, leading us to believe that it could pave the way for a better understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations. MHPP, evaluation pipeline, and leaderboard can be found in https://github.com/SparksofAGI/MHPP.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A live, medalist-annotated competitive programming benchmark finds frontier LLMs solve 53% of medium and 0% of hard problems without tools, and succeed mainly on implementation-heavy tasks.

  2. Seed-Coder: Let the Code Model Curate Data for Itself

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seed-Coder shows that an LLM-trained quality scorer can filter 6T tokens of code data and yield 8B models that outperform similar-size open code models.

Pith tools