benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

HumanEval+

Code

HumanEval+ keeps the 164 original HumanEval problems and multiplies their tests by roughly 80×. It exists because the original suite was loose enough to pass implementations that were actually wrong.

humaneval-plus

Full text164 tasks

Official source

Full text: eligible public problems include text, images and discussion.

History

The EvalPlus research group introduced HumanEval+ in 2023 to investigate whether code-generation benchmarks were accepting incorrect programs because their tests were too weak. It retained the original HumanEval tasks while expanding the checks applied to candidate implementations. The January 2024 publication date recorded here refers to the evalplus Hugging Face distribution.

How it was built

HumanEval+ retains all 164 Python function-completion problems from HumanEval and expands their tests by roughly a factor of 80. The EvalPlus approach combines model-generated test inputs with mutation-based generation to explore additional cases, using reference implementations to obtain expected outputs for valid inputs. A candidate is evaluated by executing its function against the expanded test suite, rather than by comparing its source text with a reference solution.

At a glance

What a problem looks like

A Python function signature with its docstring, plus the entry-point name. The reference implementation and the test suite are not part of the prompt.

Read an actual problem

How it is scored

Correctness is decided by executing the candidate against the expanded test suite, so the reference implementation the source ships is not a graded answer; it stays in restricted storage.

Metric: pass@1 on the expanded tests

Why it is hard

The problems are short, but the added tests probe the edge cases the original suite missed, so a solution that only handles the obvious path now fails.

Limitations and criticism

Expanded tests improve detection of incorrect implementations but do not prove correctness for every possible input. Evaluation still depends on the adequacy of task specifications, reference implementations and the particular test-suite version. The tasks are short, standalone Python functions and do not measure repository navigation, maintenance or integration with a larger software system. Reusing public HumanEval prompts also leaves potential prior exposure unresolved.

Cite

@article{liu2023humanevalplus,
  title={Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation},
  author={Jiawei Liu and Chunqiu Steven Xia and Yuyao Wang and Lingming Zhang},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01210},
  year={2023}
}

Discussion

1 thread and 0 posts on this page. Anyone may reply; no account is required.

Contribute

Share a reproduction, report an evaluation issue, or suggest a correction to this benchmark overview.

Tasks

Whole public benchmark.

Public problems
164
Formats
code (164)
Problems with images
0
Answer availability
Answer published by the source (164)
Configs
default (164)
Splits
test (164)
Awaiting a first discussion
164
Problems with a discussion
0
Public contributions
0

Provenance and terms

Pinned source revisions, newest first:

  • d32357cf319e50e9c8d8dab5ea876c72b0fd321b · acquired 2026-09-12 · release aa57f7510089
  • d32357cf319e50e9c8d8dab5ea876c72b0fd321b · acquired 2026-09-12 · release 8cda5f6854a1
  • d32357cf319e50e9c8d8dab5ea876c72b0fd321b · acquired 2026-09-12 · release ad959cd691f5