Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2512.23747

State-of-the-art Small Language Coder Model: Mify-Coder

Abhinav Parmar·Abhisek Panigrahi·Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi·Abhishek Bhattacharya·Adarsh Ramachandra·Aditya Choudhary·Aditya Garg·Aditya Raj·Alankrit Bhatt·Alpesh Yadav·Anant Vishnu·Ananthu Pillai·Ankush Kumar·Aryan Patnaik·Aswatha Narayanan S·Avanish Raj Singh·Bhavya Shree Gadda·Brijesh Pankajbhai Kachhadiya·Buggala Jahnavi·Chidurala Nithin Krishna·Chintan Shah·Chunduru Akshaya·Debarshi Banerjee·Debrup Dey·Deepa R.·Deepika B G·Faiz ur Rahman·Gagan Gayari·Gudhi Jagadeesh Kumar Naidu·Gursimar Singh·Harshal Tyagi·Harshini K·James Mani Vathalloor·Jayarama Nettar·Jayashree Gajjam·Joe Walter Sugil George·Kamalakara Sri Krishna Tadepalli·Kamalkumar Rathinasamy·Karan Chaurasia·Karthikeyan S·Kashish Arora·Kaushal Desai·Khushboo Buwade·Kiran Manjrekar·Malikireddy Venkata Sai Likhitha·Manjunath A·Mitali Mahavir Bedmutha·Mohammed Rafee Tarafdar·Nikhil Tiwari·Nikitha K Gigi·Pavan Ravikumar·Pendyala Swarnanjali·Piyush Anand·Prakash Chandrasekar·Prasanna Bhalchandra Gawade·Prasanth Sivan·Preeti Khurana·Priyanshi Babbar·Rajab Ali Mondal·Rajesh Kumar Vissapragada·Rajeshwari Ganesan·Rajeswari Koppisetti·Ramjee R.·Ramkumar Thiruppathisamy·Rani G. S.·S Reka·Samarth Gupta·Sandeep Reddy Kothakota·Sarathy K·Sathyanarayana Sampath Kumar·Saurabh Kumar·Shashank Khasare·Shenbaga Devi Venkatesh Kumar·Shiva Rama Krishna Parvatham·Shoeb Shaikh·Shrishanmathi A·Shubham Pathak·Sree Samhita Koppaka·Sreenivasa Raghavan K S·Sreeram Venkatasubramanian·Suprabha Desai Bojja·Swetha R·Syed Ahmed·Chinmai Harshitha Thota·Tushar Yadav·Veeravelly Kusumitha·V V S S Prasanth Patnaik·Vidya Sri Sesetti·Vijayakeerthi K·Vikram Raj Bakshi·Vinay K K·Vinoth Kumar Loganathan·Vipin Tiwari·Vivek Kumar Shrivastav·V Venkata Sri Datta Charan·Wasim Akhtar Khan

Abstract

We present Mify-Coder, a 2.5B-parameter code model trained on 4.2T tokens using a compute-optimal strategy built on the Mify-2.5B foundation model. Mify-Coder achieves comparable accuracy and safety while significantly outperforming much larger baseline models on standard coding and function-calling benchmarks, demonstrating that compact models can match frontier-grade models in code generation and agent-driven workflows. Our training pipeline combines high-quality curated sources with synthetic data generated through agentically designed prompts, refined iteratively using enterprise-grade evaluation datasets. LLM-based quality filtering further enhances data density, enabling frugal yet effective training. Through disciplined exploration of CPT-SFT objectives, data mixtures, and sampling dynamics, we deliver frontier-grade code intelligence within a single continuous training trajectory. Empirical evidence shows that principled data and compute discipline allow smaller models to achieve competitive accuracy, efficiency, and safety compliance. Quantized variants of Mify-Coder enable deployment on standard desktop environments without requiring specialized hardware.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Abhinav Parmar, Abhisek Panigrahi, Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi, Abhishek Bhattacharya, Adarsh Ramachandra, Aditya Choudhary, Aditya Garg, Aditya Raj, Alankrit Bhatt, Alpesh Yadav, Anant Vishnu, Ananthu Pillai, Ankush Kumar, Aryan Patnaik, Aswatha Narayanan S, Avanish Raj Singh, Bhavya Shree Gadda, Brijesh Pankajbhai Kachhadiya, Buggala Jahnavi, Chidurala Nithin Krishna, Chintan Shah, Chunduru Akshaya, Debarshi Banerjee, Debrup Dey, Deepa R., Deepika B G, Faiz ur Rahman, Gagan Gayari, Gudhi Jagadeesh Kumar Naidu, Gursimar Singh, Harshal Tyagi, Harshini K, James Mani Vathalloor, Jayarama Nettar, Jayashree Gajjam, Joe Walter Sugil George, Kamalakara Sri Krishna Tadepalli, Kamalkumar Rathinasamy, Karan Chaurasia, Karthikeyan S, Kashish Arora, Kaushal Desai, Khushboo Buwade, Kiran Manjrekar, Malikireddy Venkata Sai Likhitha, Manjunath A, Mitali Mahavir Bedmutha, Mohammed Rafee Tarafdar, Nikhil Tiwari, Nikitha K Gigi, Pavan Ravikumar, Pendyala Swarnanjali, Piyush Anand, Prakash Chandrasekar, Prasanna Bhalchandra Gawade, Prasanth Sivan, Preeti Khurana, Priyanshi Babbar, Rajab Ali Mondal, Rajesh Kumar Vissapragada, Rajeshwari Ganesan, Rajeswari Koppisetti, Ramjee R., Ramkumar Thiruppathisamy, Rani G. S., S Reka, Samarth Gupta, Sandeep Reddy Kothakota, Sarathy K, Sathyanarayana Sampath Kumar, Saurabh Kumar, Shashank Khasare, Shenbaga Devi Venkatesh Kumar, Shiva Rama Krishna Parvatham, Shoeb Shaikh, Shrishanmathi A, Shubham Pathak, Sree Samhita Koppaka, Sreenivasa Raghavan K S, Sreeram Venkatasubramanian, Suprabha Desai Bojja, Swetha R, Syed Ahmed, Chinmai Harshitha Thota, Tushar Yadav, Veeravelly Kusumitha, V V S S Prasanth Patnaik, Vidya Sri Sesetti, Vijayakeerthi K, Vikram Raj Bakshi, Vinay K K, Vinoth Kumar Loganathan, Vipin Tiwari, Vivek Kumar Shrivastav, V Venkata Sri Datta Charan, Wasim Akhtar Khan. 2025-12-26. State-of-the-art Small Language Coder Model: Mify-Coder. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23747

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE