Execution-Based Evaluation Overview

Updated 9 December 2025

Execution-based evaluation is a method that assesses systems by executing outputs in controlled environments, ensuring they function as intended.
It employs containerized sandboxes and orchestrated test harnesses to isolate execution, measure runtime behaviors, and prevent false positives.
Empirical metrics like execution success rate and pass@k provide concrete evidence of model robustness and operational effectiveness.

Execution-based evaluation refers to the process of assessing the quality or effectiveness of a system, model, or framework by running the outputs it produces in a real or simulated execution environment and measuring its functional or empirical success. Unlike static or surface-form evaluation metrics, which compare system outputs to reference solutions by token or structural similarity, execution-based evaluation directly tests whether outputs behave as intended when executed—capturing correctness, robustness, and utility under realistic operational conditions. This paradigm is now foundational in evaluating systems that generate code, automate financial trading, orchestrate parallel computations, or perform high-level workflow synthesis across domains.

1. Conceptual Distinction: Execution-Based vs. Surface-Form Evaluation

Execution-based evaluation directly probes the functional semantics of outputs. In code generation and program repair, classical metrics such as BLEU, CodeBLEU, or exact match (EM) measure n-gram or syntactic overlap with a reference. These can be blind to semantically correct, lexically divergent outputs, or—critically—permit erroneous, non-executable, or failure-inducing code to “pass” if it looks similar enough to the reference (Haque et al., 2022, Gu et al., 5 Jan 2024, Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024).

In contrast, execution-based evaluation:

Compiles and/or runs generated outputs on specification-defined test cases or in a sandboxed environment.
Examines observed effects: correct output, side-effect, resource use, exceptions, or state mutation.
Determines correctness by runtime behaviors, not by matching reference representations.

This approach eliminates false positives (outputs that seem superficially correct but fail in practice) and false negatives (novel solutions that differ textually but are semantically valid), and is therefore better aligned with practical requirements for functional correctness and system robustness (Wang et al., 2022, Yan et al., 2023).

2. Infrastructure and Platform Design for Execution-Based Evaluation

The design of an execution-based evaluation platform is shaped by environment variability, security concerns, and the need for reproducibility. Recent work has established several architectural best practices (Vo et al., 10 May 2024, Khan et al., 2023, Yan et al., 2023, Xie et al., 31 Mar 2024):

Containerization: Each test case is isolated in a disposable environment (e.g., Docker, Podman) with controlled dependencies, permissions, and resource quotas. This prevents cross-test contamination and enables safe execution, especially for potentially adversarial or untrusted code.
Test Harness Orchestration: A multi-stage workflow builds the environment, initializes the target state, injects the generated artifact (e.g., code, workflow, script), executes it, collects outputs or side-effects, and performs teardown and cleanup.
Filesystem and State Comparison: Test harnesses may use pre/post filesystem state diffs, variable dumps, and programmatic hooks to assert the presence/absence of side-effects, ensuring that functional correctness extends beyond mere I/O matching.
Per-Test Customization: Hooks and prologues allow the environment to be tailored for tests that require non-default state (e.g., specific users, files, or process tables).

Example pseudocode for test orchestration (NL2Bash) (Vo et al., 10 May 2024):

for each testNNN in tests/ {
    prologue.sh         # set up environment
    insert bash.sh      # candidate code
    podman.sh           # run container
    test.sh             # executes candidate
    post_test.sh        # gather outputs
    epilogue.sh         # check diffs
    evaluate.sh         # compare vs. expected
    cleanup.sh          # remove container
}

For large benchmarks, automated sandboxes (e.g., ExecEval, MultiCodeEngine) support parallel, multi-language execution with resource capping and fault isolation (Khan et al., 2023, Yan et al., 2023).

3. Test Suite Development and Benchmark Construction

Test suites are central to execution-based evaluation: coverage, quality, and relevance determine an evaluation’s discriminative power (Wang et al., 2022, Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024, Xie et al., 31 Mar 2024). Construction involves:

Handcrafted Test Cases: Expert-written cases that target a range of functionalities, system states, or edge conditions (e.g., Bash scripts for system administration tasks (Vo et al., 10 May 2024), curated data-science notebook cells (Huang et al., 2022)).
Automated Generation and Augmentation: Recent methods leverage LLMs to generate and debug tests automatically, with iterative refinement to ensure coverage and correctness (Xie et al., 31 Mar 2024).
Unit Tests and Ground Truth: For code tasks, each example is paired with one or more unit tests (input/output pairs, assertions, state checks) that must all be satisfied for success. Annotation guidelines require passing tests for reference solutions and frequently use bounding assertions or mocks for randomized or external results (Wang et al., 2022).

Complex benchmarks like ExecRepoBench (Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024), xCodeEval (Khan et al., 2023), and CodeScope (Yan et al., 2023) include thousands of such examples spanning multilevel code infilling, multiple languages, and multidimensional task settings.

4. Evaluation Metrics: Formal Definitions

Execution-based evaluation relies on empirical metrics computed over the results of running generated artifacts on test suites. Canonical metrics include:

Execution Success Rate: Proportion of test cases where the candidate output passes all required conditions. For a set of test cases, letting $N_{\mathrm{pass}}$ be the number passing, and $N_{\mathrm{total}}$ the total:

$\text{SuccessRate} = \frac{N_{\mathrm{pass}}}{N_{\mathrm{total}}}$

(Vo et al., 10 May 2024)

pass@k: Given $n$ samples and $c$ correct ones for a problem, the probability that at least one of $k$ sampled candidates passes all tests:

$\mathrm{pass@}k = 1-\frac{\binom{n-c}{k}}{\binom{n}{k}}$

(Wang et al., 2022, Gu et al., 5 Jan 2024, Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024, Khan et al., 2023)

Execution Accuracy / OutputEM: Fraction of examples for which the output exactly matches the reference upon execution, including downstream effects (Huang et al., 2022, He et al., 2022).
Test-Case Average (TCA@k): The mean fraction of individual test cases passed, averaged over $k$ samples and all problems (Haque et al., 2022).
Error Buckets: Divide failures into categories (e.g., syntax error, semantic error, resource limit exceeded) to diagnose model/system limitations (Vo et al., 10 May 2024, Yan et al., 2023).
Performance (Wall-Clock, Resource Use): For workflow/task frameworks, time-to-completion, speedup, parallel efficiency, and per-task resource profiles (CPU, RAM) are computed over runs (Pauloski et al., 13 Aug 2024, Gupta et al., 2020).
Execution Accuracy in Nondeterministic and State-Manipulating Contexts: Tasks such as database state mutation or chatbot system state require test definitions based on state traces and final outcomes, not just string outputs (He et al., 2022).

5. Empirical Findings and Comparative Analysis

Multiple large-scale studies have elucidated the strengths and limitations of execution-based versus static metrics:

Broader Discriminative Power: Execution-based metrics often reveal a 30–40 point drop from BLEU/exact match, especially in cases of semantically subtle bugs or unconventional but functionally correct solutions (Vo et al., 10 May 2024, Haque et al., 2022, Huang et al., 2022).
Model Ranking: Open and closed LLMs show divergent performance based on execution-based accuracy. For example, CodeLlama-34b-Instruct achieves 74% execution accuracy on Bash tasks, dropping to 58% for CodeLlama-70b-Instruct in the same settings (Vo et al., 10 May 2024). In data science code, JuPyT5 achieves 31.6% execution accuracy but only 6.2% exact match (Huang et al., 2022).
Test Coverage: Only a small number of well-chosen tests (e.g., 5–20 per problem) may suffice to saturate the gains from execution-based reranking (Li et al., 25 Aug 2024, Shi et al., 2022).
Cross-Language and Multitask Evaluation: CodeScope and xCodeEval show that execution-based evaluation exposes performance gradients by language, task, code length, and task complexity—not always reflected in static code metrics (Yan et al., 2023, Khan et al., 2023).
Execution Outcomes in Human Preference: Execution traces, screenshots, or live artifacts, when shown to human annotators, improve agreement and accuracy of reward models over code-only judgments by 5–10 percentage points (Zhuo et al., 9 Oct 2025).

Metric	Surface-Form Best	Execution-Based Best
BLEU (CodeGen, ODEX)	40–60	—
pass@1 (CodeGen, ODEX)	~36	~47 (Codex-davinci)

Table: pass@1 performance is substantially lower than BLEU/CodeBLEU scores for competitive models on open-domain code (Wang et al., 2022).

6. Domain Extensions and Applications

Execution-based evaluation underpins model development and selection in diverse domains:

System Remediation Scripts: NL→Bash platforms for incident response use rigorous isolation to test both single-command and multi-line script correctness (Vo et al., 10 May 2024).
Data Science and Notebook Contexts: ExeDS benchmarks validate models against real data dependencies and outputs from Jupyter notebooks (Huang et al., 2022).
Program Repair: FixEval and similar frameworks benchmark code fixes by actually applying patches and rerunning full problem test suites (Haque et al., 2022).
Workflow and Parallel Task Systems: TaPS evaluates execution frameworks abstracting away framework differences purely via makespan, speedup, and parallel efficiency under DAG workloads (Pauloski et al., 13 Aug 2024).
Quantum Hardware: Stress-testing protocols execute workloads at increasing complexity, reporting metrics such as KL divergence and circuit depth to assess performance boundaries of ion-trap architectures (Siddiqui et al., 24 Jan 2024).
Financial Markets: Execution-based cost estimation applies analytical, model-driven execution analysis to differentiate broker performance (Eisler et al., 29 May 2024).

7. Limitations, Best Practices, and Outlook

While execution-based evaluation presents significant methodological advantages, it poses unique challenges:

Environment Control: Ensuring reproducibility and consistency requires fixed container images, dependency pinning, and precise resource management (Vo et al., 10 May 2024, Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024).
Test Suite Quality: Incomplete or low-quality unit tests can mischaracterize outputs; automated test generation remains an open research area (Xie et al., 31 Mar 2024).
Scalability and Cost: Platform design must balance thoroughness with computational overhead, especially when evaluating large models or many candidates (Shi et al., 2022, Zhuo et al., 9 Oct 2025).
Security: Statically analyzing or sandboxing generated code is essential to prevent system compromise during evaluation (Yan et al., 2023, Huang et al., 2022).

Best practices include containerized sandboxing, logging detailed diagnostics, per-test customization, and constructing test suites that reflect both atomic and compositional task requirements. Execution-based metrics must be interpreted alongside error buckets and scalar summary statistics for holistic system design.

Future directions involve richer, automatically generated test suites; extending execution-based benchmarks to more languages and frameworks; self-debugging and test-guided reranking; and integrating runtime feedback into both training and evaluation pipelines (Yang et al., 16 Dec 2024, Li et al., 25 Aug 2024, Xie et al., 31 Mar 2024).

References: