Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This empirical study reveals a critical reliability gap in cost-efficient LLMs, showing that while they can structurally conform to enterprise code specifications, only 12.9% of generated methods actually compute correct values. The findings suggest an inverse relationship between response reliability and correctness, indicating that models often hallucinate plausible but non-functional code rather than solving the underlying algorithmic problems. These results are vital for developers assessing the risks of deploying lightweight models in production environments where functional accuracy is paramount.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

An Empirical Evaluation of Cost-Efficient Large Language Models on Algorithmic Programming Tasks

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.18052v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study empirically evaluates whether cost-efficient Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trusted to generate enterprise code to a written specification. Three models (Gemini Flash 3, GPT-5.4 mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) were asked to solve 992 algorithmic problems as Java Spring Boot service methods conforming to a mandated signature and data-transfer-object specification, crossing four model and agentic coding tool combinations with two prompt variants to yield eight configurations, with iteration forbidden and hardcoded answers explicitly prohibited. Eight problem statements were withheld to probe how models respond to missing input. The 7,593 resulting methods were classified by an eight-class outcome taxonomy describing what each does about producing an answer, then deployed and executed, giving 7,936 measured requests joined to that classification. Structural conformance approached ceiling, yet 38.4% of methods do not compute the value they returned and only 12.9% of returned answers were correct. Conditioning on outcome class shows that response reliability and correctness are inversely related, whereas genuinely computing methods answered least often and were correct 19.3%. Limitations include single generation runs per configuration, partial harness coverage, single-pass timing, syntactic classification, and probable corpus contamination.

Abstract:This study empirically evaluates whether cost-efficient Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trusted to generate enterprise code to a written specification. Three models (Gemini Flash 3, GPT-5.4 mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) were asked to solve 992 algorithmic problems as Java Spring Boot service methods conforming to a mandated signature and data-transfer-object specification, crossing four model and agentic coding tool combinations with two prompt variants to yield eight configurations, with iteration forbidden and hardcoded answers explicitly prohibited. Eight problem statements were withheld to probe how models respond to missing input. The 7,593 resulting methods were classified by an eight-class outcome taxonomy describing what each does about producing an answer, then deployed and executed, giving 7,936 measured requests joined to that classification. Structural conformance approached ceiling, yet 38.4% of methods do not compute the value they returned and only 12.9% of returned answers were correct. Conditioning on outcome class shows that response reliability and correctness are inversely related, whereas genuinely computing methods answered least often and were correct 19.3%. Limitations include single generation runs per configuration, partial harness coverage, single-pass timing, syntactic classification, and probable corpus contamination.

7 pages, 7 figures. Accepted for publication in the IEEE Proceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies (ICACT)

Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

D.2.5; I.2.2; D.2.3; I.2.7

arXiv:2609.18052 [cs.SE]

(or arXiv:2609.18052v1 [cs.SE] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18052 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 308 words

Related coverage