CodeMind: A Framework to Challenge Large Language Models for Code Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09664v4
• Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:23:48 GMT
• Title: CodeMind: A Framework to Challenge Large Language Models for Code Reasoning
• Authors: Changshu Liu, Shizhuo Dylan Zhang, Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) CodeMind supports three code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Dependent Execution Reasoning (DER), and Specification Reasoning (SR)
• Score: 1.4027589547318842
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Solely relying on test passing to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for code synthesis may result in unfair assessment or promoting models with data leakage. As an alternative, we introduce CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs. CodeMind currently supports three code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Dependent Execution Reasoning (DER), and Specification Reasoning (SR). The first two evaluate models to predict the execution output of an arbitrary code or code the model could correctly synthesize. The third one evaluates the extent to which LLMs implement the specified expected behavior. Our extensive evaluation of nine LLMs across five benchmarks in two different programming languages using CodeMind shows that LLMs fairly follow control flow constructs and, in general, explain how inputs evolve to output, specifically for simple programs and the ones they can correctly synthesize. However, their performance drops for code with higher complexity, non-trivial logical and arithmetic operators, non-primitive types, and API calls. Furthermore, we observe that, while correlated, specification reasoning (essential for code synthesis) does not imply execution reasoning (essential for broader programming tasks such as testing and debugging): ranking LLMs based on test passing can be different compared to code reasoning.

Related papers

• SURGE: On the Potential of Large Language Models as General-Purpose Surrogate Code Executors [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code-related tasks, such as code understanding and code generation. However, an equally important yet underexplored question is whether LLMs can serve as general-purpose surrogate code executors. This study provides empirical insights into the feasibility of using LLMs as surrogate code executors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:38:19Z)
• A Tool for In-depth Analysis of Code Execution Reasoning of Large Language Models [1.644043499620662]
  This paper introduces ExeRScope, a series of tools to analyze the result of code execution reasoning frameworks. Analysis can be generalized to code with similar properties without the urgent need to design more benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T16:56:08Z)
• 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)
• Case2Code: Scalable Synthetic Data for Code Generation [105.89741089673575]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown outstanding breakthroughs in code generation. Recent work improves code LLMs by training on synthetic data generated by some powerful LLMs. We propose a textbfCase2Code task by exploiting the expressiveness and correctness of programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T11:35:00Z)
• Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models [23.715005053430957]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a great boost in the performance of code-related tasks. In this paper, we undertake a systematic and comprehensive study on code summarization in the era of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T05:48:42Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We? [25.451857140926943]
  Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs. We propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T05:37:16Z)
• Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs [65.2379940117181]
  We introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:24Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers [60.009969929857704]
  Logical reasoning is an important task for artificial intelligence with potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. In this work, we reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC. We observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:58:40Z)
• CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and Generation [72.1638273937025]
  Large language models (LLMs) pretrained on vast source code have achieved prominent progress in code intelligence. CodeT5+ is a family of encoder-decoder LLMs for code in which component modules can be flexibly combined to suit a wide range of downstream code tasks. We extensively evaluate CodeT5+ on over 20 code-related benchmarks in different settings, including zero-shot, finetuning, and instruction-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-13T14:23:07Z)

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.