LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10100v2
• Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 22:34:45 GMT
• Title: LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluation
• Authors: Sarah Fakhoury, Aaditya Naik, Georgios Sakkas, Saikat Chakraborty, Shuvendu K. Lahiri,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel interactive workflow TiCoder for guided intent clarification. We present an empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of the workflow to improve code generation accuracy. We observe an average absolute improvement of 45.97% in the pass@1 code generation accuracy for both datasets and across all LLMs within 5 user interactions.
• Score: 13.800675921118348
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in automating significant aspects of coding by producing natural code from informal natural language (NL) intent. However, given NL is informal, it does not lend easily to checking that the generated code correctly satisfies the user intent. In this paper, we propose a novel interactive workflow TiCoder for guided intent clarification (i.e., partial formalization) through tests to support the generation of more accurate code suggestions. Through a mixed methods user study with 15 programmers, we present an empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of the workflow to improve code generation accuracy. We find that participants using the proposed workflow are significantly more likely to correctly evaluate AI generated code, and report significantly less task-induced cognitive load. Furthermore, we test the potential of the workflow at scale with four different state-of-the-art LLMs on two python datasets, using an idealized proxy for a user feedback. We observe an average absolute improvement of 45.97% in the pass@1 code generation accuracy for both datasets and across all LLMs within 5 user interactions, in addition to the automatic generation of accompanying unit tests.

Related papers

• AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation [36.61172223528231]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in solving complex tasks across diverse domains. We introduce AFlow, an automated framework that efficiently explores this space using Monte Carlo Tree Search. Empirical evaluations across six benchmark datasets demonstrate AFlow's efficacy, yielding a 5.7% average improvement over state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:40:40Z)
• 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)
• Code Needs Comments: Enhancing Code LLMs with Comment Augmentation [91.52444946362547]
  We introduce a novel data augmentation method that generates comments for existing code, coupled with a data filtering strategy that filters out code data poorly correlated with natural language. We conducted experiments on three code-focused Large Language Models and observed consistent improvements in performance on two widely-used programming skill benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T13:56:38Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)
• 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)
• LeTI: Learning to Generate from Textual Interactions [60.425769582343506]
  We explore LMs' potential to learn from textual interactions (LETI) that not only check their correctness with binary labels but also pinpoint and explain errors in their outputs through textual feedback. Our focus is the code generation task, where the model produces code based on natural language instructions. LETI iteratively fine-tunes the model, using the objective LM, on a concatenation of natural language instructions, LM-generated programs, and textual feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T15:53:31Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)
• Aligning Offline Metrics and Human Judgments of Value for Code Generation Models [25.726216146776054]
  We show that while correctness captures high-value generations, programmers still rate code that fails unit tests as valuable if it reduces the overall effort needed to complete a coding task. We propose a hybrid metric that combines functional correctness and syntactic similarity and show that it achieves a 14% stronger correlation with value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-29T05:03:28Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging Code Generation to Improve Code Retrieval and Summarization via Dual Learning [18.354352985591305]
  Code summarization generates brief natural language description given a source code snippet, while code retrieval fetches relevant source code given a natural language query. Recent studies have combined these two tasks to improve their performance. We propose a novel end-to-end model for the two tasks by introducing an additional code generation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T12:26:11Z)

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.