The First Prompt Counts the Most! An Evaluation of Large Language Models on Iterative Example-Based Code Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation have been extensively studied, particularly for implementing target functionalities from natural-language descriptions. As an alternative to natural language, input-output (I/O) examples provide an accessible, unambiguous, and flexible way to describe functionalities. However, their inherent diversity, opaqueness, and incompleteness impose greater challenges for understanding and implementing the target requirements. Therefore, generating code from I/O examples (i.e., example-based code generation) provides a new perspective, allowing us to additionally evaluate LLMs’ capability to infer target functionalities from limited information and to process new-form requirements. However, related research about LLMs in example-based code generation remains largely unexplored. To fill this gap, this paper presents the first comprehensive study on example-based code generation using LLMs. To address the incorrectness caused by the incompleteness of I/O examples, we adopt an iterative evaluation framework and formalize the objective of example-based code generation as two sequential sub-objectives: generating code conforming to the given examples and generating code that successfully implements the target functionalities from (iteratively) given examples. We assess six state-of-the-art LLMs using a new benchmark of 172 diverse target functionalities (derived from HumanEval and CodeHunt). The results demonstrate that when requirements are described using iterative I/O examples rather than natural language, the LLMs’ score decreases by over 60%, indicating that example-based code generation remains challenging for the evaluated LLMs. Notably, the vast majority (even over 95%) of successfully implemented functionalities are achieved in the first round of the iterations, suggesting that the LLMs struggle to effectively utilize the iteratively supplemented requirements. Furthermore, we find that combining I/O examples with even imprecise and fragmental natural language descriptions greatly improves LLM performance, and the selection of initial I/O examples can also influence the score, suggesting opportunities for prompt optimization. These findings highlight the importance of early prompts during interactions and offer critical insights and implications for enhancing LLM-based code generation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".