Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models for Context-Aware Code Completion using SAFIM Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have transformed code completion and made it a more intelligent, context-aware tool in contemporary integrated development systems. These developments have greatly improved developers' capacity for error-free, effective code writing. Using the Syntax-Aware Fill-in- the- Middle (SAFIM) dataset, this work assesses different chat-based LLMs, including Gemini 1.5 Flash, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4 Turbo. This benchmark is intended especially to evaluate models' syntactic sensitivity in code creation. Accuracy and efficiency were assessed using performance benchmarks including cosine similarity with ground-truth complements and latency. The results expose significant variations in the code completion skills of the models, therefore providing insightful analysis of their distinct strengths and shortcomings. This paper offers a baseline for next developments in LLM-based code completion by means of a comparative study stressing the trade-offs between correctness and speed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".