Evaluation of Code LLMs on Geospatial Code Generation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software development support tools have been studied for a long time, with recent approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation. These models can generate Python code for data science and machine learning applications. LLMs are helpful for software engineers because they increase productivity in daily work. An LLM can also serve as a "mentor" for inexperienced software developers, and be a viable learning support. High-quality code generation with LLMs can also be beneficial in geospatial data science. However, this domain poses different challenges, and code generation LLMs are typically not evaluated on geospatial tasks. Here, we show how we constructed an evaluation benchmark for code generation models, based on a selection of geospatial tasks. We categorised geospatial tasks based on their complexity and required tools. Then, we created a dataset with tasks that test model capabilities in spatial reasoning, spatial data processing, and geospatial tools usage. The dataset consists of specific coding problems that were manually created for high quality. For every problem, we proposed a set of test scenarios that make it possible to automatically check the generated code for correctness. In addition, we tested a selection of existing code generation LLMs for code generation in the geospatial domain. We share our dataset and reproducible evaluation code on a public GitHub repository1, arguing that this can serve as an evaluation benchmark for new LLMs in the future. Our dataset will hopefully contribute to the development new models capable of solving geospatial coding tasks with high accuracy. These models will enable the creation of coding assistants tailored for geospatial applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it