Benchmark Almanac

CodeSimpleQA

Fading

Models answer short bilingual fact questions about programming concepts and implementations across languages and computer science domains.

The paper also releases a 66M-sample instruction corpus. Scoring is assumed to follow SimpleQA grading.

Made by
Yang et al.
Released
December 2025
Kind
Short factual questions
Level
University
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Short answer
Last in a launch post
February 2026, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
February 2026

In the authors’ words

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides in code generation, achieving impressive capabilities in synthesizing code snippets from natural language instructions. However, a critical challenge remains in ensuring LLMs generate factually accurate responses about programming concepts, technical implementations, etc. Most previous code-related benchmarks focus on code execution correctness, overlooking the factual accuracy of programming knowledge. To address this gap, we present CodeSimpleQA, a comprehensive bilingual benchmark designed to evaluate the factual accuracy of code LLMs in answering code-related questions, which contains carefully curated question-answer pairs in both English and Chinese, covering diverse programming languages and major computer science domains. Further, we create CodeSimpleQA-Instruct, a large-scale instruction corpus with 66M samples, and develop a post-training framework combining supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Our comprehensive evaluation of diverse LLMs reveals that even frontier LLMs struggle with code factuality. Our proposed framework demonstrates substantial improvements over the base model, underscoring the critical importance of factuality-aware alignment in developing reliable code LLMs.

Abstract of CodeSimpleQA: Scaling Factuality in Code Large Language Models (arXiv:2512.19424, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Seed2.0 Pro leads with 58%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Seed2.0 Pro 58%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.0 Pro 58% Feb 2026 Lab model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.0 Pro

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in February 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 58 CodeSimpleQA

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 58 CodeSimpleQA (Table 11) Capabilities

More in Factuality

All 74 in Factuality
  • SimpleVQA In use Models answer 2,025 short factual questions about images across 9 tasks and 9 topics. An LLM judge grades answers against fixed references. Qwen3.7-Plus 81.7%
  • HallusionBench In use Models answer 1,129 yes or no questions about 346 images, built in pairs to expose language hallucination and visual illusion. Scored by accuracy. Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 73.5%
  • SimpleQA Verified In use 1,000 human-verified, de-duplicated short-answer factual questions measuring parametric knowledge. Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.5%
  • Kimi Hallu Bench In use Models answer hard prompts drawn from practical work tasks. Fact-checking agents score the share of claims that are hallucinated. GPT-6 Astra 4.20%
  • Internal adversarially-designed factuality evaluations In use Models answer adversarial questions in nine categories such as history, math and code. Scored on agreement with human ideal responses. GPT-6 Luna 7.60%
  • AA-Omniscience v1.1 In use Models answer 3,000 knowledge questions in six domains without tools and may abstain. The index adds correct answers and subtracts wrong ones. Inkling 2 Small 16.1