aiqbench analysis
Current open-source code models still lag significantly behind human performance, with the best model achieving only 23.64% correctness against a 57.2% human baseline. A granular analysis reveals that compile errors dominate failure modes and that model rankings are highly dependent on specific problem types and programming languages, undermining single-metric leaderboards. Developers should prioritize artifact-preserving, multilingual evaluations to uncover these hidden tradeoffs rather than relying on aggregate pass rates.
Beyond Pass Rate: A Multilingual, Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Open Code LLMs
arXiv:2606.08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes. We present a large-scale, execution-grounded evaluation of 9 openly accessible LLMs specialized for coding on 2,707 free LeetCode problems across 12 programming languages. Our corpus contains 325,343 problem-model-language jobs, each linked to prompt metadata, extracted code, LeetCode execution outcomes, and static-analysis signals. The results show that current open models remain far from the human acceptance reference: the best model, Yi-Coder-9B-Chat, reaches 23.64% mean correctness, compared with a 57.2% human acceptance baseline. Rankings are also slice-dependent: Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct is strongest on hard problems and distinct-problem coverage, while Gemma-2-27B-IT achieves the highest all-language lint pass rate. Failure analysis shows that compile errors account for 63.25% of non-accepted best submissions, indicating that many failures occur before semantic correctness can be tested. Static quality further diverges from functional correctness. Together, these findings show that multilingual, artifact-preserving evaluation reveals tradeoffs hidden by single-language or single-metric leaderboards.
Abstract:Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes. We present a large-scale, execution-grounded evaluation of 9 openly accessible LLMs specialized for coding on 2,707 free LeetCode problems across 12 programming languages. Our corpus contains 325,343 problem-model-language jobs, each linked to prompt metadata, extracted code, LeetCode execution outcomes, and static-analysis signals. The results show that current open models remain far from the human acceptance reference: the best model, Yi-Coder-9B-Chat, reaches 23.64% mean correctness, compared with a 57.2% human acceptance baseline. Rankings are also slice-dependent: Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct is strongest on hard problems and distinct-problem coverage, while Gemma-2-27B-IT achieves the highest all-language lint pass rate. Failure analysis shows that compile errors account for 63.25% of non-accepted best submissions, indicating that many failures occur before semantic correctness can be tested. Static quality further diverges from functional correctness. Together, these findings show that multilingual, artifact-preserving evaluation reveals tradeoffs hidden by single-language or single-metric leaderboards.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2606.08840 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.08840v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.08840 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 · 266 words
Related coverage

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026