MHPP: Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Beyond Basic Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11430v2
• Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 12:21:52 GMT
• Title: MHPP: Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Beyond Basic Code Generation
• Authors: Jianbo Dai, Jianqiao Lu, Yunlong Feng, Dong Huang, Guangtao Zeng, Rongju Ruan, Ming Cheng, Haochen Tan, Zhijiang Guo,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems dataset, consisting of 210 unique human-curated problems.
• Score: 18.1643331912182
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. For instance, GPT-4o has achieved a 91.0\% pass rate on HumanEval. However, this draws into question the adequacy of existing benchmarks in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation capabilities. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 210 unique human-curated problems. By focusing on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, MHPP gauges LLMs' abilities to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and apply coding knowledge effectively. Initial evaluations of 26 LLMs using MHPP showed many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. Moreover, MHPP highlighted various previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs, leading us to believe that it could pave the way for a better understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations. MHPP, evaluation pipeline, and leaderboard can be found in https://github.com/SparksofAGI/MHPP.

Related papers

• HumanEval-V: Evaluating Visual Understanding and Reasoning Abilities of Large Multimodal Models Through Coding Tasks [25.959032350818795]
  HumanEval-V is a benchmark designed to evaluate Large Language Models' visual understanding and reasoning capabilities through code generation. HumanEval-V includes 108 carefully crafted, entry-level Python coding tasks derived from platforms like CodeForces and Stack Overflow. We evaluate 19 state-of-the-art LMMs using HumanEval-V, uncovering significant challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T09:04:57Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Exploring the Zero-Shot Capabilities of LLMs Handling Multiple Problems at once [9.173325772800341]
  We study the zero-shot MPP performance of various LLMs on 6 classification and 12 reasoning benchmarks. We observe that LLMs consistently perform worse with selecting indices of texts of a given class label and with multiple mixed-source reasoning problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T02:52:32Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• PythonSaga: Redefining the Benchmark to Evaluate Code Generating LLMs [1.9207412600219353]
  We evaluate two popular benchmarks for Python code generation, analyzing their diversity and difficulty. Our findings unveil a critical bias towards a limited set of programming concepts, neglecting most of the other concepts entirely. We propose a novel benchmark, PythonSaga, featuring 185 hand-crafted prompts on a balanced representation of 38 programming concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T12:36:43Z)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models [71.21409522341482]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of large language models (LLMs) We introduce LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. It introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T15:08:59Z)
• Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localization [11.080712737595174]
  We propose a language model based fault localization approach that locates buggy lines of code without any test coverage information. We fine-tune language models with 350 million, 6 billion, and 16 billion parameters on small, manually curated corpora of buggy programs. Our empirical evaluation shows that LLMAO improves the Top-1 results over the state-of-the-art machine learning fault localization (MLFL) baselines by 2.3%-54.4%, and Top-5 results by 14.4%-35.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T01:26:39Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Okapi: Instruction-tuned Large Language Models in Multiple Languages with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [61.83548032416181]
  We present Okapi, the first system with instruction-tuned LLMs based on RLHF for multiple languages. Okapi introduces instruction and response-ranked data in 26 diverse languages to facilitate the experiments and development of future multilingual LLM research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-29T18:01:46Z)

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.