Code Repair with LLMs gives an Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17503v3
• Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:01:16 GMT
• Title: Code Repair with LLMs gives an Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff
• Authors: Hao Tang, Keya Hu, Jin Peng Zhou, Sicheng Zhong, Wei-Long Zheng, Xujie Si, Kevin Ellis,
• Abstract summary: Iteratively improving and repairing source code with large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a popular way of generating programs that would be too complex to construct in one shot. We show here that refinement exposes an explore-exploit tradeoff: exploit by refining the program that passes the most test cases, or explore by refining a lesser considered program.
• Score: 16.80314690163063
• License:
• Abstract: Iteratively improving and repairing source code with large language models (LLMs), known as refinement, has emerged as a popular way of generating programs that would be too complex to construct in one shot. Given a bank of test cases, together with a candidate program, an LLM can improve that program by being prompted with failed test cases. But it remains an open question how to best iteratively refine code, with prior work employing simple greedy or breadth-first strategies. We show here that refinement exposes an explore-exploit tradeoff: exploit by refining the program that passes the most test cases, or explore by refining a lesser considered program. We frame this as an arm-acquiring bandit problem, which we solve with Thompson Sampling. The resulting LLM-based program synthesis algorithm is broadly applicable: Across loop invariant synthesis, visual reasoning puzzles, and competition programming problems, we find that our new method can solve more problems using fewer language model calls.

Related papers

• Combining LLM Code Generation with Formal Specifications and Reactive Program Synthesis [0.7580487359358722]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with accuracy and are unsuitable for high-risk applications. We introduce a solution that divides the code generation into two parts; one to be handled by an LLM and one to be handled by formal methods-based program synthesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T15:59:06Z)
• 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)
• Learning to Reason via Program Generation, Emulation, and Search [33.11955431589091]
  Program synthesis with language models (LMs) has unlocked a large set of reasoning abilities. Not all reasoning tasks are easily expressible as code, e.g. tasks involving commonsense reasoning, moral decision-making, and sarcasm understanding. We propose Code Generation and Emulated EXecution (CoGEX) to extend an LM's program synthesis skills to such tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T19:40:50Z)
• Distilling Algorithmic Reasoning from LLMs via Explaining Solution Programs [2.3020018305241337]
  Distilling explicit chain-of-thought reasoning paths has emerged as an effective method for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models. We propose a novel approach to distill reasoning abilities from LLMs by leveraging their capacity to explain solutions. Our experiments demonstrate that learning from explanations enables the Reasoner to more effectively guide program implementation by a Coder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T22:19:50Z)
• CodeChain: Towards Modular Code Generation Through Chain of Self-revisions with Representative Sub-modules [51.82044734879657]
  We propose CodeChain, a novel framework for inference that elicits modularized code generation through a chain of self-revisions. We find that CodeChain can significantly boost both modularity as well as correctness of the generated solutions, achieving relative pass@1 improvements of 35% on APPS and 76% on CodeContests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T10:17:48Z)
• ALGO: Synthesizing Algorithmic Programs with LLM-Generated Oracle Verifiers [60.6418431624873]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at implementing code from functionality descriptions but struggle with algorithmic problems. We propose ALGO, a framework that synthesizes Algorithmic programs with LLM-Generated Oracles to guide the generation and verify their correctness. Experiments show that when equipped with ALGO, we achieve an 8x better one-submission pass rate over the Codex model and a 2.6x better one-submission pass rate over CodeT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T00:10:15Z)
• Fully Autonomous Programming with Large Language Models [0.9558392439655015]
  Current approaches to program synthesis with Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a "near miss syndrome" We use OpenAI Codex as the LLM and Program Synthesis Benchmark 2 as a database of problem descriptions and tests for evaluation. The resulting framework outperforms both conventional usage of Codex without the repair phase and traditional genetic programming approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T16:12:05Z)
• 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)
• Coder Reviewer Reranking for Code Generation [56.80381384717]
  We propose Coder-Reviewer reranking as a method for sampling diverse programs from a code language model and reranking with model likelihood. Experimental results show that Coder-Reviewer reranking leads to consistent and significant improvement over reranking with the Coder model only. Coder-Reviewer reranking is easy to implement by prompting, can generalize to different programming languages, and works well with off-the-shelf hyper parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T18:56:33Z)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)

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.