Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Quality Assurance of LLM-generated Code: Addressing Non-Functional Quality Characteristics

Xin Sun, Daniel Ståhl, Kristian Sandahl, Christoph Kessler · Nov 13, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation. While prior evaluations focus on functional correctness, there is still a limited understanding of the non-functional quality characteristics of generated code. Guided by the ISO/IEC 25010 quality model, this study adopts a multi-methods approach comprising three complementary elements: a literature review of 109 papers, two industry workshops with practitioners from multiple organizations, and an empirical analysis of patching real-world software issues using three LLMs. Motivated by insights from both the literature and practitioners, the empirical study examined the quality of generated patches regarding security, maintainability, and performance efficiency, which were identified as critical code-level quality attributes. Our results indicate that existing research primarily emphasizes security, performance efficiency, and maintainability, while other quality attributes are understudied. In contrast, practitioners prioritize maintainability and readability, warning that generated code may accelerate the accumulation of technical debt. The empirical evaluation demonstrates the instability of optimizing NFQCs through prompts in practical software engineering settings. Overall, our findings expose a misalignment between academic focus, industry priorities, and observed model behavior, highlighting the need to integrate quality assurance mechanisms into LLM code generation pipelines to ensure that future generated code not only passes tests but truly passes with quality.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • In recent years, large language models have been widely integrated into software engineering workflows, supporting tasks like code generation.
  • While prior evaluations focus on functional correctness, there is still a limited understanding of the non-functional quality characteristics of generated code.
  • Guided by the ISO/IEC 25010 quality model, this study adopts a multi-methods approach comprising three complementary elements: a literature review of 109 papers, two industry workshops with practitioners from multiple organizations, and an empirical analysis of patching real-world software issues using three LLMs.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.