Papers › Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS
Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS
Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Saurav Kadavath, Mantas Mazeika, Akul Arora, Ethan Guo, Collin Burns, Samir Puranik, Horace He, Dawn Song, Jacob Steinhardt
While programming is one of the most broadly applicable skills in modern society, modern machine learning models still cannot code solutions to basic problems. Despite its importance, there has been surprisingly little work on evaluating code generation, and it can be difficult to accurately assess code generation performance rigorously. To meet this challenge, we introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Unlike prior work in more restricted settings, our benchmark measures the ability of models to take an arbitrary natural language specification and generate satisfactory Python code. Similar to how companies assess candidate software developers, we then evaluate models by checking their generated code on test cases. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. We fine-tune large language models on both GitHub and our training set, and we find that the prevalence of syntax errors is decreasing exponentially as models improve. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 20% of the test cases of introductory problems, so we find that machine learning models are now beginning to learn how to code. As the social significance of automatic code generation increases over the coming years, our benchmark can provide an important measure for tracking advancements.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2105.09938")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 11 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 9 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 11 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
11 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from hendrycks/apps. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
f05983c38acfa250 · report
27f23c533d62061a · report
7f74025d94c22cd6 · report
991b30911bfd77a2 · report
72342b1d3d9f4231 · report
6b434bae76a3379f · report
ed8331339b4de97c · report
0c83bb0f43b8dc57 · report
8bbb265e59e23293 · report
de2e007d84fab02c · report
9c56401b1df9832c · report
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Competition Pass@1 | 0.00% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Competition Pass@1000 | 11.40% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Competition Pass@5 | 0.00% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Competition Pass@any | 11.40% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Interview Pass@1 | 0.57% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Interview Pass@1000 | 9.83% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Interview Pass@5 | 0.80% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Interview Pass@any | 9.83% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Introductory Pass@1 | 3.90% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Introductory Pass@1000 | 27.90% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Introductory Pass@5 | 5.50% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Code Generation | APPS | GPT-Neo 2.7B | Introductory Pass@any | 27.90% | #14 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
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