Papers › Creative and Correct: Requesting Diverse Code Solutions from AI Foundation Models
Creative and Correct: Requesting Diverse Code Solutions from AI Foundation Models
Scott Blyth, Markus Wagner, Christoph Treude
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
AI foundation models have the capability to produce a wide array of responses to a single prompt, a feature that is highly beneficial in software engineering to generate diverse code solutions. However, this advantage introduces a significant trade-off between diversity and correctness. In software engineering tasks, diversity is key to exploring design spaces and fostering creativity, but the practical value of these solutions is heavily dependent on their correctness. Our study systematically investigates this trade-off using experiments with HumanEval tasks, exploring various parameter settings and prompting strategies. We assess the diversity of code solutions using similarity metrics from the code clone community. The study identifies combinations of parameters and strategies that strike an optimal balance between diversity and correctness, situated on the Pareto front of this trade-off space. These findings offer valuable insights for software engineers on how to effectively use AI foundation models to generate code solutions that are diverse and accurate.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections