Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their coding capabilities. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focused on simplified or isolated aspects of coding, such as single-file code generation or repository issue debugging, falling short of measuring the full spectrum of challenges raised by real-world programming activities. In this case study, we explore the performance of LLMs across the entire software development lifecycle with DevEval, encompassing stages including software design, environment setup, implementation, acceptance testing, and unit testing. DevEval features four programming languages, multiple domains, high-quality data collection, and carefully designed and verified metrics for each task. Empirical studies show that current LLMs, including GPT-4, fail to solve the challenges presented within DevEval. Our findings offer actionable insights for the future development of LLMs toward real-world programming applications.

Prompt trading has emerged as a significant intellectual property concern in recent years, where vendors entice users by showcasing sample images before selling prompt templates that can generate similar images. This work investigates a critical security vulnerability: attackers can steal prompt templates using only a limited number of sample images. To investigate this threat, we introduce Prism, a prompt-stealing benchmark consisting of 50 templates and 450 images, organized into Easy and Hard difficulty levels. To identify the vulnerabity of VLMs to prompt stealing, we propose EvoStealer, a novel template stealing method that operates without model fine-tuning by leveraging differential evolution algorithms. The system first initializes population sets using multimodal large language models (MLLMs) based on predefined patterns, then iteratively generates enhanced offspring through MLLMs. During evolution, EvoStealer identifies common features across offspring to derive generalized templates. Our comprehensive evaluation conducted across open-source (InternVL2-26B) and closed-source models (GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini) demonstrates that EvoStealer’s stolen templates can reproduce images highly similar to originals and effectively generalize to other subjects, significantly outperforming baseline methods with an average improvement of over 10%. Moreover, our cost analysis reveals that EvoStealer achieves template stealing with negligible computational expenses. Our code and dataset are available at https://whitepagewu.github.io/evostealer-site.

LLM-as-Judge has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to provide reward signals in trainings. While recent work has explored multi-agent extensions such as multi-agent debate and meta-judging to enhance evaluation quality, the question of how intrinsic biases manifest in these settings remains underexplored. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias. We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge. Our results show that debate framework amplifies biases sharply after the initial debate, and this increased bias is sustained in subsequent rounds, while meta-judge approaches exhibit greater resistance. We further investigate the incorporation of PINE, a leading single-agent debiasing method, as a bias-free agent within these systems. The results reveal that this bias-free agent effectively reduces biases in debate settings but provides less benefit in meta-judge scenarios. Our work provides a comprehensive study of bias behavior in multi-agent LLM-as-Judge systems and highlights the need for targeted bias mitigation strategies in collaborative evaluation settings.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases—particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt—compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.