Tackling Execution-Based Evaluation for NL2Bash

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06807v1
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 20:45:34 GMT
• Title: Tackling Execution-Based Evaluation for NL2Bash
• Authors: Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Brent Paulovicks, Vadim Sheinin,
• Abstract summary: Execution-based evaluation (EE) can validate the predicted code by comparing the execution output of model prediction and expected output in system. We create a set of 50 prompts to evaluate some popular Large Language Models for NL2Bash.
• Score: 0.9176056742068815
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Given recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the task of translating from natural language prompts to different programming languages (code generation) attracts immense attention for wide application in different domains. Specially code generation for Bash (NL2Bash) is widely used to generate Bash scripts for automating different tasks, such as performance monitoring, compilation, system administration, system diagnostics, etc. Besides code generation, validating synthetic code is critical before using them for any application. Different methods for code validation are proposed, both direct (execution evaluation) and indirect validations (i.e. exact/partial match, BLEU score). Among these, Execution-based Evaluation (EE) can validate the predicted code by comparing the execution output of model prediction and expected output in system. However, designing and implementing such an execution-based evaluation system for NL2Bash is not a trivial task. In this paper, we present a machinery for execution-based evaluation for NL2Bash. We create a set of 50 prompts to evaluate some popular LLMs for NL2Bash. We also analyze several advantages and challenges of EE such as syntactically different yet semantically equivalent Bash scripts generated by different LLMs, or syntactically correct but semantically incorrect Bash scripts, and how we capture and process them correctly.

Related papers

• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• DOCE: Finding the Sweet Spot for Execution-Based Code Generation [69.5305729627198]
  We propose a comprehensive framework that includes candidate generation, $n$-best reranking, minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, and self-ging as the core components. Our findings highlight the importance of execution-based methods and the difference gap between execution-based and execution-free methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T07:10:36Z)
• Generating Unseen Code Tests In Infinitum [1.0674604700001968]
  We present a method for creating benchmark variations that generalize across coding tasks and programming languages. We implement one benchmark, called textitauto-regression, for the task of text-to-code generation in Python.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T08:11:20Z)
• NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution [50.93581376646064]
  Large language models (LLMs) of code are typically trained on the surface textual form of programs. We propose NExT, a method to teach LLMs to inspect the execution traces of programs and reason about their run-time behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T01:46:32Z)
• CodeMind: A Framework to Challenge Large Language Models for Code Reasoning [1.4027589547318842]
  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)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:24:46Z)
• 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)
• CodeScope: An Execution-based Multilingual Multitask Multidimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Code Understanding and Generation [18.354576598908448]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on assisting humans in programming. Existing benchmarks for evaluating the code understanding and generation capacities of LLMs suffer from severe limitations. We introduce CodeScope, an execution-based, multilingual, multitask, multidimensional evaluation benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T23:18:52Z)
• PPTC Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
  We introduce the PowerPoint Task Completion benchmark to assess the ability of Large Language Models to finish multi-turn, multi-modal instructions. We also propose the PPTX-Match Evaluation System that evaluates if LLMs finish the instruction based on the prediction file rather than the label API sequence. The results show that GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs with 75.1% accuracy in single-turn dialogue testing but faces challenges in completing entire sessions, achieving just 6% session accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T08:06:35Z)
• InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedback [50.725076393314964]
  We introduce InterCode, a lightweight, flexible, and easy-to-use framework of interactive coding as a standard reinforcement learning environment. Our framework is language and platform agnostic, uses self-contained Docker environments to provide safe and reproducible execution. We demonstrate InterCode's viability as a testbed by evaluating multiple state-of-the-art LLMs configured with different prompting strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-26T17:59:50Z)
• xCodeEval: A Large Scale Multilingual Multitask Benchmark for Code Understanding, Generation, Translation and Retrieval [32.60391966381949]
  We introduce xCodeEval, the largest executable multilingual multitask benchmark to date. It features a total of $7$ tasks involving code understanding, generation, translation and retrieval. xCodeEval adopts an execution-based evaluation and offers a multilingual code execution engine, ExecEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T10:08:51Z)
• 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)
• NL2CMD: An Updated Workflow for Natural Language to Bash Commands Translation [2.099922236065961]
  This paper provides two contributions to research on synthesizing Bash Commands from scratch. First, we describe a state-of-the-art translation model used to generate Bash Commands from the corresponding English text. Second, we introduce a new NL2CMD dataset that is automatically generated, involves minimal human intervention, and is over six times larger than prior datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T18:31:36Z)
• 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)
• Fault-Aware Neural Code Rankers [64.41888054066861]
  We propose fault-aware neural code rankers that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our fault-aware rankers can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:01:05Z)
• Natural Language to Code Translation with Execution [82.52142893010563]
  Execution result--minimum Bayes risk decoding for program selection. We show that it improves the few-shot performance of pretrained code models on natural-language-to-code tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T06:06:08Z)

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.