Don't Claim Benchmark-Oriented Optimization Improves General Coding Capability -- Diverse Evaluation Is Required

Post-training papers, model cards, and blog posts often treat scores on a small set of coding benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench and LiveCodeBench) as evidence of broad coding capability, both for research artifacts and user-facing systems. We argue that optimization for these benchmarks leads to measuring task-specific performance, creating a meaning gap between measured scores and claims of general coding ability. We examine this gap with a Django-based case study benchmark suite we create. Evaluating foundation models and checkpoints post-trained on SWE-bench trajectories, we find that benchmark rankings frequently fail to generalize. Post-trained checkpoints show little cross-task transfer, and SWE-bench optimization yields limited or no gains on our tasks or on LiveCodeBench. Similarly, fine-tuning on individual Django modalities fails to transfer. We conclude that a small number of benchmarks is insufficient for evaluating diverse models under benchmark optimization pressure. We encourage the community to use differentiated evaluation - holistic assessment for frontier models, multi-task suites for research, and human-in-the-loop studies for narrow task applications. Finally, we argue for creating a capability taxonomy and sustained benchmark maintenance, rather than one-off benchmark releases. Without reliable evaluation standards, engineers and researchers using LLMs and agents have to rely on insufficient evidence to make research, development, and deployment decisions.

Beyond the Training Distribution: Mapping Generalization Boundaries in Neural Program Synthesis

Large-scale transformers achieve impressive results on program synthesis benchmarks, yet their true generalization capabilities remain obscured by data contamination and opaque training corpora. To rigorously assess whether models are truly generalizing or merely retrieving memorized templates, we introduce a strictly controlled program synthesis environment based on a domain-specific arithmetic grammar. By systematically enumerating and evaluating millions of unique programs, we construct interpretable syntactic and semantic metric spaces. This allows us to precisely map data distributions and sample train and test splits that isolate specific distributional shifts. Our experiments demonstrate that optimizing density generalization -- through diverse sampling over both semantic and syntactic spaces -- induces robust out-of-distribution generalization. Conversely, evaluating support generalization reveals that transformers severely struggle with extrapolation, experiencing a performance drop of over 30% when forced to generate syntactically novel programs. While steadily scaling up compute improves generalization, the gains follow a strictly log-linear relationship. We conclude that robust generalization requires maximizing training diversity across multiple manifolds, and our findings indicate the necessity for novel search-based approaches to break through current log-linear scaling bottlenecks.