The Fault in our Stars: Quality Assessment of Code Generation Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10155v3
• Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:10:47 GMT
• Title: The Fault in our Stars: Quality Assessment of Code Generation Benchmarks
• Authors: Mohammed Latif Siddiq, Simantika Dristi, Joy Saha, Joanna C. S. Santos,
• Abstract summary: We conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. We analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them.
• Score: 0.5137309756089941
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are gaining popularity among software engineers. A crucial aspect of developing effective code generation LLMs is to evaluate these models using a robust benchmark. Evaluation benchmarks with quality issues can provide a false sense of performance. In this work, we conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. To conduct this study, we analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them. We also investigated whether fixing the identified quality issues in the benchmarks' prompts affects a model's performance. We also studied memorization issues of the evaluation dataset, which can put into question a benchmark's trustworthiness. We found that code generation evaluation benchmarks mainly focused on Python and coding exercises and had very limited contextual dependencies to challenge the model. These datasets and the developers' prompts suffer from quality issues like spelling and grammatical errors, unclear sentences to express developers' intent, and not using proper documentation style. Fixing all these issues in the benchmarks can lead to a better performance for Python code generation, but not a significant improvement was observed for Java code generation. We also found evidence that GPT-3.5-Turbo and CodeGen-2.5 models may have data contamination issues.

Related papers

• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability. Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks. We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• Are Large Language Models Memorizing Bug Benchmarks? [6.640077652362016]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to various software engineering tasks, including code generation, bug detection, and repair. A growing concern within the software engineering community is that benchmarks may not reliably reflect true LLM performance due to the risk of data leakage. We systematically evaluate popular LLMs to assess their susceptibility to data leakage from widely used bug benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T13:46:04Z)
• Prompting and Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Automated Code Review Comment Generation [5.6001617185032595]
  Large language models pretrained on both programming and natural language data tend to perform well in code-oriented tasks. We fine-tune open-source Large language models (LLM) in parameter-efficient, quantized low-rank fashion on consumer-grade hardware to improve review comment generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:01:38Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Models [27.24738197172374]
  Large language models have achieved remarkable performance on various code generation benchmarks. There have been growing concerns regarding potential contamination of these benchmarks as they may be leaked into pretraining and finetuning data. We show that there are substantial overlap between popular code generation benchmarks and open training corpus, and models perform significantly better on the subset of the benchmarks where similar solutions are seen during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T21:45:35Z)
• Enhancing Code Intelligence Tasks with ChatGPT [17.712126698173535]
  ChatGPT-generated comments demonstrate superior semantic consistency with the code compared to human references. We rebuild the widely used dataset, CodeSearchNet, with ChatGPT-generated comments. Results show that the model pre-trained by ChatGPT-enhanced data outperforms its counterpart on code summarization, code generation, and code translation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T09:01:08Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• LLM-Assisted Code Cleaning For Training Accurate Code Generators [53.087019724256606]
  We investigate data quality for code and find that making the code more structured and readable leads to improved code generation performance of the system. We build a novel data-cleaning pipeline that uses these principles to transform existing programs. We evaluate our approach on two challenging algorithmic code generation benchmarks and find that fine-tuning CodeLLaMa-7B improves the performance by up to 30% compared to fine-tuning on the original dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-25T02:45:50Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS [54.22600767666257]
  We introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 15% of the test cases of introductory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T17:58:42Z)

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.