Unsupervised Evaluation of Code LLMs with Round-Trip Correctness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08699v2
• Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 10:55:06 GMT
• Title: Unsupervised Evaluation of Code LLMs with Round-Trip Correctness
• Authors: Miltiadis Allamanis, Sheena Panthaplackel, Pengcheng Yin,
• Abstract summary: We introduce round-trip correctness (RTC) as an alternative evaluation method. RTC rests on the idea that we can ask a model to make a prediction. We show how to employ RTC to evaluate code synthesis and editing.
• Score: 25.557158930295465
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: To evaluate code large language models (LLMs), research has relied on a few small manually curated benchmarks, such as HumanEval and MBPP, which represent a narrow part of the real-world software domains. In this work, we introduce round-trip correctness (RTC) as an alternative evaluation method. RTC allows Code LLM evaluation on a broader spectrum of real-world software domains without the need for costly human curation. RTC rests on the idea that we can ask a model to make a prediction (e.g., describe some code using natural language), feed that prediction back (e.g., synthesize code from the predicted description), and check if this round-trip leads to code that is semantically equivalent to the original input. We show how to employ RTC to evaluate code synthesis and editing. We find that RTC strongly correlates with model performance on existing narrow-domain code synthesis benchmarks while allowing us to expand to a much broader set of domains and tasks which was not previously possible without costly human annotations.

Related papers

• Evaluating and Aligning CodeLLMs on Human Preference [42.26173776584043]
  We present a rigorous human-curated benchmark CodeArena to emulate the complexity and diversity of real-world coding tasks. We also propose a diverse synthetic instruction corpus SynCode-Instruct to verify the effectiveness of the large-scale synthetic instruction fine-tuning. The results find performance differences between execution-based benchmarks and CodeArena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T17:40:38Z)
• Human-Like Code Quality Evaluation through LLM-based Recursive Semantic Comprehension [39.277408536940825]
  Code quality evaluation involves scoring generated code quality based on a reference code for a specific problem statement. Currently, there are two main forms of evaluating code quality: match-based evaluation and execution-based evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T01:49:25Z)
• Uncovering LLM-Generated Code: A Zero-Shot Synthetic Code Detector via Code Rewriting [78.48355455324688]
  We propose a novel zero-shot synthetic code detector based on the similarity between the code and its rewritten variants. Our results demonstrate a notable enhancement over existing synthetic content detectors designed for general texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T08:57:28Z)
• Text-Video Retrieval with Global-Local Semantic Consistent Learning [122.15339128463715]
  We propose a simple yet effective method, Global-Local Semantic Consistent Learning (GLSCL) GLSCL capitalizes on latent shared semantics across modalities for text-video retrieval. Our method achieves comparable performance with SOTA as well as being nearly 220 times faster in terms of computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T11:59:36Z)
• Comments as Natural Logic Pivots: Improve Code Generation via Comment Perspective [85.48043537327258]
  We propose MANGO (comMents As Natural loGic pivOts), including a comment contrastive training strategy and a corresponding logical comment decoding strategy. Results indicate that MANGO significantly improves the code pass rate based on the strong baselines. The robustness of the logical comment decoding strategy is notably higher than the Chain-of-thoughts prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T08:30:46Z)
• Automating Patch Set Generation from Code Review Comments Using Large Language Models [2.045040820541428]
  We provide code contexts to five popular Large Language Models (LLMs) We obtain the suggested code-changes (patch sets) derived from real-world code-review comments. The performance of each model is meticulously assessed by comparing their generated patch sets against the historical data of human-generated patch-sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T02:46:08Z)
• LLMDFA: Analyzing Dataflow in Code with Large Language Models [8.92611389987991]
  This paper presents LLMDFA, a compilation-free and customizable dataflow analysis framework. We decompose the problem into several subtasks and introduce a series of novel strategies. On average, LLMDFA achieves 87.10% precision and 80.77% recall, surpassing existing techniques with F1 score improvements of up to 0.35.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T15:21:35Z)
• Linear-time Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Reference Aggregation [52.1701152610258]
  Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding is a text generation technique that has been shown to improve the quality of machine translations. It requires the pairwise calculation of a utility metric, which has quadratic complexity. We propose to approximate pairwise metric scores with scores calculated against aggregated reference representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:59:30Z)
• Rewriting the Code: A Simple Method for Large Language Model Augmented Code Search [7.822427053078387]
  Generation-Augmented Retrieval (GAR) framework generates exemplar code snippets to augment queries. We propose a simple yet effective method that additionally Rewrites the Code (ReCo) within the for style normalization. Code Style Similarity is the first metric tailored to quantify stylistic similarities in code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T12:12:50Z)
• RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedback [17.35361167578498]
  Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedback is a novel online RL framework with unit test feedback of multi-granularity for refining code LLMs. Our approach generates data in real-time during training and simultaneously utilizes fine-grained feedback signals to guide the model towards producing higher-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T05:18:18Z)
• Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [20.45045253933097]
  We propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator. We show that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T05:46:48Z)
• CodeExp: Explanatory Code Document Generation [94.43677536210465]
  Existing code-to-text generation models produce only high-level summaries of code. We conduct a human study to identify the criteria for high-quality explanatory docstring for code. We present a multi-stage fine-tuning strategy and baseline models for the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T18:05:44Z)
• Interactive Code Generation via Test-Driven User-Intent Formalization [60.90035204567797]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code from informal natural language (NL) intent. It is hard to define a notion of correctness since natural language can be ambiguous and lacks a formal semantics. We describe a language-agnostic abstract algorithm and a concrete implementation TiCoder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-11T17:41:08Z)

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.