Which Programming Language and Model Work Best With LLM-as-a-Judge For Code Retrieval?
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866911187538542592 |
|---|---|
| author | Roberts, Lucas Roberts, Denisa |
| author_facet | Roberts, Lucas Roberts, Denisa |
| contents | Code search is an important information retrieval application. Benefits of better code search include faster new developer on-boarding, reduced software maintenance, and ease of understanding for large repositories. Despite improvements in search algorithms and search benchmarks, the domain of code search has lagged behind. One reason is the high cost of human annotation for code queries and answers. While humans may annotate search results in general text QA systems, code annotations require specialized knowledge of a programming language (PL), as well as domain specific software engineering knowledge. In this work we study the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to retrieve code at the level of functions and to generate annotations for code search results. We compare the impact of the retriever representation (sparse vs. semantic), programming language, and LLM by comparing human annotations across several popular languages (C, Java, Javascript, Go, and Python). We focus on repositories that implement common data structures likely to be implemented in any PLs. For the same human annotations, we compare several LLM-as-a-Judge models to evaluate programming language and other affinities between LLMs. We find that the chosen retriever and PL exhibit affinities that can be leveraged to improve alignment of human and AI relevance determinations, with significant performance implications. We also find differences in representation (sparse vs. semantic) across PLs that impact alignment of human and AI relevance determinations. We propose using transpilers to bootstrap scalable code search benchmark datasets in other PLs and in a case study demonstrate that human-AI relevance agreement rates largely match the (worst case) human-human agreement under study. The application code used in this work is available at \href{https://github.com/rlucas7/code-searcher/}{this github repo}. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_00324 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Which Programming Language and Model Work Best With LLM-as-a-Judge For Code Retrieval? Roberts, Lucas Roberts, Denisa Software Engineering Information Retrieval Machine Learning Code search is an important information retrieval application. Benefits of better code search include faster new developer on-boarding, reduced software maintenance, and ease of understanding for large repositories. Despite improvements in search algorithms and search benchmarks, the domain of code search has lagged behind. One reason is the high cost of human annotation for code queries and answers. While humans may annotate search results in general text QA systems, code annotations require specialized knowledge of a programming language (PL), as well as domain specific software engineering knowledge. In this work we study the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to retrieve code at the level of functions and to generate annotations for code search results. We compare the impact of the retriever representation (sparse vs. semantic), programming language, and LLM by comparing human annotations across several popular languages (C, Java, Javascript, Go, and Python). We focus on repositories that implement common data structures likely to be implemented in any PLs. For the same human annotations, we compare several LLM-as-a-Judge models to evaluate programming language and other affinities between LLMs. We find that the chosen retriever and PL exhibit affinities that can be leveraged to improve alignment of human and AI relevance determinations, with significant performance implications. We also find differences in representation (sparse vs. semantic) across PLs that impact alignment of human and AI relevance determinations. We propose using transpilers to bootstrap scalable code search benchmark datasets in other PLs and in a case study demonstrate that human-AI relevance agreement rates largely match the (worst case) human-human agreement under study. The application code used in this work is available at \href{https://github.com/rlucas7/code-searcher/}{this github repo}. |
| title | Which Programming Language and Model Work Best With LLM-as-a-Judge For Code Retrieval? |
| topic | Software Engineering Information Retrieval Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00324 |