Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

HumanEval Pro and MBPP Pro: Evaluating Large Language Models on Self-invoking 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 2412.21199 v2 pith:LZBA242B submitted 2024-12-30 cs.SE cs.CL

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

We introduce self-invoking code generation, a new task designed to evaluate the progressive reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. In this task, models are presented with a base problem and a related, more complex problem. They must solve the base problem and then utilize its solution to address the more complex one. This work features three key contributions. First, we propose a general recipe for generating more challenging versions of existing benchmarks, resulting in three new benchmarks: HumanEval Pro, MBPP Pro, and BigCodeBench-Lite Pro, specifically designed to assess LLMs on self-invoking code generation. Second, from the analysis of experimental results over twenty LLMs on our benchmarks, we have two important observations: (i) Most LLMs excel in traditional code generation benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP, but their performance declines on self-invoking tasks. For example, o1-mini achieves 96.2% pass@1 on HumanEval but only 76.2% on HumanEval Pro. (ii) On self-invoking code generation task, the instruction-tuned models demonstrate only marginal improvements compared to the base models. Third, we disclose the types of failure modes that exist in our evaluation results. All these results underscore the need for further advancements in self-invoking code generation tasks and provide a new direction for future research on enhancing LLMs' code reasoning capabilities.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. ACPO: Adaptive Credit Policy Optimization via Fine-Grained Surrogate Entropy

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mode-local surrogate entropy asymmetrically reweights token advantages in RLVR, improving LLM math and code reasoning over SAPO, DAPO, and GTPO.

  2. Where Do LLMs Still Struggle? An In-Depth Analysis of Code Generation Benchmarks

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across four benchmarks and six LLMs, consistently failed code-generation tasks are driven by four recurring error patterns rather than by solution-code complexity.

  3. Can LLMs Generate High-Quality Test Cases for Algorithm Problems? TestCase-Eval: A Systematic Evaluation of Fault Coverage and Exposure

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TestCase-Eval introduces fault coverage and fault exposure tasks over 500 Codeforces problems and finds that 19 LLMs, led by Qwen3-32B, remain far below human expert performance.

  4. Reasoning as a Resource: Optimizing Fast and Slow Thinking in Code Generation Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reasoning depth in code LLMs should be managed as a controllable resource across synthetic data generation, benchmarking, and deployment, rather than left implicit.

Pith tools