SciCodePile: A 128GB Corpus and Executable Benchmark for Challenging Scientific Code Generation

Large language models (LLMs) excel at general-purpose code generation, yet how well they handle scientific code remains an open question. Existing datasets and benchmarks are limited in scale, domain coverage, or executable verification, leaving the true gap between current LLMs and reliable scientific code generators inadequately assessed. To address these limitations, we present SciCodePile, the largest scientific code corpus to date, constructed from 37,737 public repositories and collectively comprising 128GB of code that spans multiple computational science disciplines. From this corpus, we further curate an executable benchmark of 200 tasks, each equipped with a sandboxed execution environment and an automated test harness for functional verification. We evaluate 15 LLMs from both open-source and closed-source families on three tasks: prefix-to-suffix completion, fill-in-the-middle infilling, and executable code generation. Results show that scientific code generation remains highly challenging: The best CodeBLEU reaches only 38.13 and 38.37 on the two completion tasks, while the strongest model achieves just 12.30\% Pass@1 on the executable benchmark, underscoring how far current models remain from reliable scientific code generation. To demonstrate the training utility of SciCodePile, we further show that continued pretraining on our corpus improves CodeBLEU by $\times$2.84 on scientific code completion, and instruction tuning on our data improves Pass@1 by $\times$4.79 on the executable benchmark. All code and data are available at https://huggingface.co/SciCodePile.

From Tokens to Regions: CUDA-Sensitive Instruction Tuning for GPU Kernel Generation

High-performance CUDA kernels are essential for scalable AI systems, while Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle to generate correct kernels due to strict and implicit execution constraints. Existing LLM-based approaches either rely on costly agentic or reinforcement-learning (RL) pipelines, or adopt supervised fine-tuning (SFT) objectives that fail to explicitly model CUDA sensitivity, namely code tokens or regions tightly coupled with execution constraints. In this work, we investigate CUDA sensitivity from the perspective of token confidence patterns, showing that CUDA sensitivity appears at both token and region levels, where most CUDA-sensitive tokens are predicted with high confidence, while a smaller low-confidence subset forms regions corresponding to execution-critical structures. These findings suggest that effective CUDA kernel generation should both leverage high-confidence CUDA-sensitive tokens and preserve low-confidence CUDA-sensitive regions. Building on these insights, we propose \textbf{\underline{CU}DA-\underline{Se}nsitive Instruction \underline{T}uning (CuSeT)}, a low-cost post-training method within a simple SFT framework. CuSeT follows the principle of ``from tokens to regions'' by combining \emph{adaptive token-level masking} with \emph{region-aware sample reweighting}. Experiments show that CuSeT consistently improves functional correctness across multiple model families and scales, outperforming standard SFT and advanced SFT variants, while achieving competitive performance against frontier CUDA kernel generation models with substantially lower inference cost.

Lost in the Flow with Code Talkers: Unveiling the Instruction-Tuning Tax of Large Language Models in Code Tasks

AI coding assistants have significantly improved developer productivity by automatically suggesting code that aligns with user intent, and many of these tools are now integrated directly into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). Developers interact with code in two distinct cognitive modes: Flow and Command. While developers require tools that directly complete or infill code in unfinished programs during Flow mode, they also need tools that can comprehend intentions expressed as natural-language instructions and convert them into executable code in Command mode. Although instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate many application scenarios due to their abilities to infer and fulfill developers' intents, it remains unclear whether the same paradigm is equally suitable for different code-related tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how instruction tuning affects the feasibility of CodeLLMs as coding assistants. To fill this gap, we conduct the first empirical study that uncovers a key trade-off caused by instruction tuning across programming modes, which we term the Instruction-Tuning Tax. Our results show that instruction tuning is not a free lunch: although instruction-tuned models are more capable of following instructions and leveraging structured guidance, these gains often come at the cost of weaker infilling performance. We further extend our study through both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including manual failure categorization, behavioral metrics that capture generation fidelity, and intermediate-checkpoint evaluation throughout the tuning process. Summarizing our results into seven findings and four implications, our study offers a new perspective on the development of AI-powered coding tools and highlights the need to carefully balance instruction-following ability with effective code generation assistance.