Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:8D49D57F

Context Window Scaling and Pass@1 Accuracy in Code Llama for Cross-Library API Generation

Submitted: 31 May 2026
Review score: 8.50/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 6
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20469787

Abstract

Abstract: This report synthesises findings from 10 peer-reviewed papers addressing the following research question: How does increasing context window size affect pass@1 accuracy on BigCodeBench for Code Llama variants during cross-library API generation tasks. Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered remarkable advancements across diverse code-related tasks, known as Code LLMs, particularly in code generation that generates source code with LLM from natural language descriptions. This burgeoning field has captured significant. 6 claims were extracted from source literature; 6 were independently verified against retrieved documents. An automated multi-reviewer quality assessment produced a score of 8.5/10. This report is a machine-generated literature synthesis and does not constitute original research.

Research Question

How does increasing context window size affect pass@1 accuracy on BigCodeBench for Code Llama variants during cross-library API generation tasks?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims6
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.
Evaluated2026-06-10T06:30:49+00:00

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage6 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.