ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14317v2
• Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:06:50 GMT
• Title: ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code
• Authors: Terry Yue Zhuo
• Abstract summary: We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
• Score: 7.556444391696562
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in the field of natural language generation have facilitated the use of large language models to assess the quality of generated text. Although these models have shown promising results in tasks such as machine translation and summarization, their applicability in code intelligence tasks remains limited without human involvement. The complexity of programming concepts required for such tasks makes it difficult to develop evaluation metrics that align with human judgment. Token-matching-based metrics, such as BLEU, have demonstrated weak correlations with human practitioners in code intelligence tasks. Moreover, utilizing human-written test suites to evaluate functional correctness can be challenging in domains with low resources. To overcome these obstacles, we propose \texttt{ICE-Score}, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models (LLMs) for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences, without the need for test oracles or references. We evaluate the efficacy of our metric on two different aspects (\textit{human preference} and \textit{execution success}) and four programming languages. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation, delivering high levels of accuracy and consistency across various programming languages and tasks. We also make our evaluation metric and datasets available to the public\footnote{\url{https://github.com/terryyz/ice-score}}, encouraging further research in evaluating code intelligence tasks.

Related papers

• Linguistics Theory Meets LLM: Code-Switched Text Generation via Equivalence Constrained Large Language Models [16.82812708514889]
  Code-switching, the phenomenon of alternating between two or more languages in a single conversation, presents unique challenges for Natural Language Processing (NLP) Most existing research focuses on either syntactic constraints or neural generation, with few efforts to integrate linguistic theory with large language models (LLMs) for generating natural code-switched text. We introduce EZSwitch, a novel framework that combines Equivalence Constraint Theory (ECT) with LLMs to produce linguistically valid and fluent code-switched text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T03:03:32Z)
• On the Limitations of Embedding Based Methods for Measuring Functional Correctness for Code Generation [4.065344017083881]
  We analyze the ability of embedding-based metrics like CodeBERTScore to measure functional correctness and other helpful constructs like editing effort. Our results show that while they have a weak correlation with functional correctness (0.16), they are strongly correlated (0.72) with editing effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T15:54:39Z)
• Machine Translation Meta Evaluation through Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets [92.38654521870444]
  We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs. This dataset aims to discover whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:17:42Z)
• Evaluation Metrics of Language Generation Models for Synthetic Traffic Generation Tasks [22.629816738693254]
  We show that common NLG metrics, like BLEU, are not suitable for evaluating Synthetic Traffic Generation (STG) We propose and evaluate several metrics designed to compare the generated traffic to the distribution of real user texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T11:26:26Z)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Types [68.76742370525234]
  We propose a new evaluation scheme to model human judgments in 7 NLP tasks, based on the fine-grained mismatches between a pair of texts. Inspired by the recent efforts in several NLP tasks for fine-grained evaluation, we introduce a set of 13 mismatch error types. We show that the mismatch errors between the sentence pairs on the held-out datasets from 7 NLP tasks align well with the human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T01:38:53Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text [64.81682222169113]
  We show that reference-free metrics are inherently biased and limited in their ability to evaluate generated text. We argue that they should not be used to measure progress on tasks like machine translation or summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T22:12:06Z)
• BEAMetrics: A Benchmark for Language Generation Evaluation Evaluation [16.81712151903078]
  Natural language processing (NLP) systems are increasingly trained to generate open-ended text. Different metrics have different strengths and biases, and reflect human intuitions better on some tasks than others. Here, we describe the Benchmark to Evaluate Automatic Metrics (BEAMetrics) to make research into new metrics itself easier to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:03:19Z)
• GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Text [17.234442722611803]
  We propose GRUEN for evaluating Grammaticality, non-Redundancy, focUs, structure and coherENce of generated text. GRUEN utilizes a BERT-based model and a class of syntactic, semantic, and contextual features to examine the system output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T05:59:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.