On the Limitations of Embedding Based Methods for Measuring Functional Correctness for Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01580v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:54:39 GMT
• Title: On the Limitations of Embedding Based Methods for Measuring Functional Correctness for Code Generation
• Authors: Atharva Naik,
• Abstract summary: We analyze the ability of embedding-based metrics like CodeBERTScore to measure functional correctness and other helpful constructs like editing effort. Our results show that while they have a weak correlation with functional correctness (0.16), they are strongly correlated (0.72) with editing effort.
• Score: 4.065344017083881
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The task of code generation from natural language (NL2Code) has become extremely popular, especially with the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, efforts to quantify and track this progress have suffered due to a lack of reliable metrics for functional correctness. While popular benchmarks like HumanEval have test cases to enable reliable evaluation of correctness, it is time-consuming and requires human effort to collect test cases. As an alternative several reference-based evaluation metrics have been proposed, with embedding-based metrics like CodeBERTScore being touted as having a high correlation with human preferences and functional correctness. In our work, we analyze the ability of embedding-based metrics like CodeBERTScore to measure functional correctness and other helpful constructs like editing effort by analyzing outputs of ten models over two popular code generation benchmarks. Our results show that while they have a weak correlation with functional correctness (0.16), they are strongly correlated (0.72) with editing effort.

Related papers

• FamiCom: Further Demystifying Prompts for Language Models with Task-Agnostic Performance Estimation [73.454943870226]
  Language models have shown impressive in-context-learning capabilities. We propose a measure called FamiCom, providing a more comprehensive measure for task-agnostic performance estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T06:14:55Z)
• CodeScore-R: An Automated Robustness Metric for Assessing the FunctionalCorrectness of Code Synthesis [17.747095451792084]
  We propose an automated robust metric, called CodeScore-R, for evaluating the functionality of code synthesis. In the tasks of code generation and migration in Java and Python, CodeScore-R outperforms other metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T02:51:17Z)
• Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code [6.301373791541809]
  This paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:32:12Z)
• Towards Multiple References Era -- Addressing Data Leakage and Limited Reference Diversity in NLG Evaluation [55.92852268168816]
  N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations. We propose to utilize textitmultiple references to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T14:49:26Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text [64.81682222169113]
  We show that reference-free metrics are inherently biased and limited in their ability to evaluate generated text. We argue that they should not be used to measure progress on tasks like machine translation or summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T22:12:06Z)
• 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)
• CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesis [57.87741831987889]
  In the area of code synthesis, the commonly used evaluation metric is BLEU or perfect accuracy. We introduce a new automatic evaluation metric, dubbed CodeBLEU. It absorbs the strength of BLEU in the n-gram match and further injects code syntax via abstract syntax trees (AST) and code semantics via data-flow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-22T03:10:49Z)

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.