Multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets like Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) are widely used to evaluate the commonsense, understanding, and problem-solving abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, the open-source nature of these benchmarks and the broad sources of training data for LLMs have inevitably led to benchmark contamination, resulting in unreliable evaluation. To alleviate this issue, we propose the contamination-free MCQ benchmark called MMLU-CF, which reassesses LLMs’ understanding of world knowledge by averting both unintentional and malicious data contamination. To mitigate unintentional data contamination, we source questions from a broader domain of over 200 billion webpages and apply three specifically designed decontamination rules. To prevent malicious data contamination, we divide the benchmark into validation and test sets with similar difficulty and subject distributions. The test set remains closed-source to ensure reliable results, while the validation set is publicly available to promote transparency and facilitate independent evaluation. The performance gap between these two sets of LLMs will indicate the contamination degree on the validation set in the future. We evaluated over 40 mainstream LLMs on the MMLU-CF. Compared to the original MMLU, not only LLMs’ performances significantly dropped but also the performance rankings of them changed considerably. This indicates the effectiveness of our approach in establishing a contamination-free and fairer evaluation standard.

Implementing new features in repository-level codebases is a crucial application of code generation models. However, current benchmarks lack a dedicated evaluation framework for this capability. To fill this gap, we introduce FEA-Bench, a benchmark designed to assess the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform incremental development within code repositories. We collect pull requests from 83 GitHub repositories and use rule-based and intent-based filtering to construct task instances focused on new feature development. Each task instance containing code changes is paired with relevant unit test files to ensure that the solution can be verified. The feature implementation requires LLMs to simultaneously possess code completion capabilities for new components and code editing abilities for other relevant parts in the code repository, providing a more comprehensive evaluation method of LLMs’ automated software engineering capabilities.Experimental results show that LLMs perform significantly worse in the FEA-Bench, highlighting considerable challenges in such repository-level incremental code development.

As large language models (LLMs) are gradually integrated into human daily life, assessing their underlying values becomes essential for understanding their risks and alignment with specific preferences. Despite growing efforts, current value evaluation methods face two key challenges. C1. Evaluation Validity: Static benchmarks fail to reflect intended values or yield informative results due to data contamination or a ceiling effect. C2. Result Interpretation: They typically reduce the pluralistic and often incommensurable values to one-dimensional scores, which hinders users from gaining meaningful insights and guidance. To address these challenges, we present Value Compass Benchmarks, the first dynamic, online and interactive platform specially devised for comprehensive value diagnosis of LLMs. It (1) grounds evaluations in multiple basic value systems from social science; (2) develops a generative evolving evaluation paradigm that automatically creates real-world test items co-evolving with ever-advancing LLMs; (3) offers multi-faceted result interpretation, including (i) fine-grained scores and case studies across 27 value dimensions for 33 leading LLMs, (ii) customized comparisons, and (iii) visualized analysis of LLMs’ alignment with cultural values. We hope Value Compass Benchmarks serves as a navigator for further enhancing LLMs’ safety and alignment, benefiting their responsible and adaptive development.

Preference learning extends the performance of Code LLMs beyond traditional supervised fine-tuning by leveraging relative quality comparisons. In existing approaches, a set of n candidate solutions is evaluated based on test case success rates, with the candidate demonstrating a higher pass rate being labeled as positive and its counterpart with a lower pass rate as negative. However, because this approach aligns entire failing code blocks rather than pinpointing specific errors, it lacks the granularity necessary to capture meaningful error-correction relationships. As a result, the model is unable to learn more informative error-correction patterns. To address these issues, we propose Target-DPO, a new preference alignment framework that mimics human iterative debugging to refine Code LLMs. Target-DPO explicitly locates error regions and aligns the corresponding tokens via a tailored DPO algorithm. To facilitate it, we introduce the CodeFlow dataset, where samples are iteratively refined until passing tests, with modifications capturing error corrections. Extensive experiments show that a diverse suite of Code LLMs equipped with Target-DPO achieves significant performance gains in code generation and improves on challenging tasks like BigCodeBench. In-depth analysis reveals that Target-DPO yields fewer errors. Code, model and datasets are in: https://github.com/JieWu02/Target-DPO.