REVIEW 5 cited by
How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark
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
read the original abstract
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Reinforcement Learning for Code Optimization
On the new DMC-Optim benchmark, a staged correctness-plus-speed RL recipe lifts top-50% pass@1 from 18.0% to 31.3% (Qwen 2.5 7B) and 30.7% to 50.4% (CWM 32B) while keeping pure-correctness pass@1 roughly stable.
-
PerfAgent: Profiler-Guided Iterative Refinement for Repository-Level Code Optimization
A profiler-guided, verifier-in-the-loop workflow more than doubles the rate at which an off-the-shelf LLM agent matches human-expert speedups on two repository-level code-optimization benchmarks.
-
Correct but Slow: An Empirical Study of the GPU Kernel Evaluation Gap in Modern Domain-Specific Languages
Correctness-only evaluation of Triton and TileLang kernels admits slowdowns over 300× versus library baselines; library-relative efficiency and roofline utilization flag all such failures in a 22-kernel suite.
-
Evaluating Efficiency and Novelty of LLM-Generated Code for Graph Analysis
In a benchmark of LLM-generated C code for graph analysis, Claude Sonnet 4 Extended produced the most correct, fastest, and most memory-efficient implementations, beating human baselines on triangle counting.
-
Energy-Aware Code Generation with LLMs: Benchmarking Small vs. Large Language Models for Sustainable AI Programming
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.