The RealHumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models' Abilities to Support Programmers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02806v2
• Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:06:22 GMT
• Title: The RealHumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models' Abilities to Support Programmers
• Authors: Hussein Mozannar, Valerie Chen, Mohammed Alsobay, Subhro Das, Sebastian Zhao, Dennis Wei, Manish Nagireddy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Ameet Talwalkar, David Sontag,
• Abstract summary: We study whether gains on existing benchmarks or more preferred LLM responses translate to programmer productivity when coding with LLMs. We introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity.
• Score: 44.28269395385471
• License:
• Abstract: Evaluation of large language models for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), or more recently using human preferences of LLM responses. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks or more preferred LLM responses translate to programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. We introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=243) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with seven LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better proxy signals. We open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.

Related papers

• Model-in-the-Loop (MILO): Accelerating Multimodal AI Data Annotation with LLMs [19.331803578031188]
  We propose the Model-in-the-Loop (MILO) framework, which integrates AI/ML models into the annotation process. Our research introduces a collaborative paradigm that leverages the strengths of both professional human annotators and large language models (LLMs) Three empirical studies on multimodal data annotation demonstrate MILO's efficacy in reducing handling time, improving data quality, and enhancing annotator experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T20:05:57Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts? [24.563167762241346]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently started to demonstrate human-level performance in several areas. This paper explores the possibility of substituting costly human subjects with much cheaper LLM queries in evaluations of code and code-related artifacts. Our results show that replacing some human annotation effort with LLMs can produce inter-rater agreements equal or close to human-rater agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T12:30:01Z)
• How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark [39.13045037676502]
  Development of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. We develop ENAMEL, a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T04:19:20Z)
• Self-Exploring Language Models: Active Preference Elicitation for Online Alignment [88.56809269990625]
  We propose a bilevel objective optimistically biased towards potentially high-reward responses to actively explore out-of-distribution regions. Our experimental results demonstrate that when fine-tuned on Zephyr-7B-SFT and Llama-3-8B-Instruct models, Self-Exploring Language Models (SELM) significantly boosts the performance on instruction-following benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T17:59:07Z)
• Copilot Evaluation Harness: Evaluating LLM-Guided Software Programming [12.355284125578342]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a focal point in modern software development. LLMs offer the potential to significantly augment developer productivity by serving as intelligent, chat-driven programming assistants. However, each system requires the LLM to be honed to its set of workspaces to ensure the best performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T03:51:34Z)
• Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Models [52.98743860365194]
  We propose a new fine-tuning method called Self-Play fIne-tuNing (SPIN) At the heart of SPIN lies a self-play mechanism, where the LLM refines its capability by playing against instances of itself. This sheds light on the promise of self-play, enabling the achievement of human-level performance in LLMs without the need for expert opponents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T18:53:13Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)

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.