CFCEval: Evaluating Security Aspects in Code Generated by Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code-focused Large Language Models (LLMs), such as CodeX and Star-Coder, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in enhancing developer productivity through context-aware code generation. However, evaluating the quality and security of LLM-generated code remains a significant challenge. Existing evaluation protocols for Code LLMs lack both methodological rigor and comprehensive scope. A key limitation is dataset bias, which arises from unintentional overlap between training and testing data. Furthermore, while CodeBLEU, a BLEU-based metric, is widely used to assess code similarity, it suffers from critical shortcomings, including imprecise tokenization, structural limitations, and low reference diversity. To address these challenges, we introduce CFCEval, a novel framework for evaluating the quality and security of code generated by LLMs. CFCEval mitigates dataset bias by creating a new benchmark, MLVBench, and incorporates ELRM, a new metric designed to assess the relevance between reference code and generated code. CFCEval evaluates generated code across four dimensions: programming quality, vulnerability-fixing capability, post-transformation fixing capability, and relevance. Our experiments show that CFCEval not only captures both quality and security aspects of generated code more effectively but also that its ELRM aligns more closely with human judgments than CodeBLEU, thus paving the way for future advancements in Code LLMs evaluation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".