RepoQA: Evaluating Long Context Code Understanding
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06025v1
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:15:30 GMT
- Title: RepoQA: Evaluating Long Context Code Understanding
- Authors: Jiawei Liu, Jia Le Tian, Vijay Daita, Yuxiang Wei, Yifeng Ding, Yuhan Katherine Wang, Jun Yang, Lingming Zhang,
- Abstract summary: RepoQA is a benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on long-context code understanding.
RepoQA includes 500 code search tasks gathered from 50 popular repositories across 5 modern programming languages.
- Score: 12.329233433333416
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Recent advances have been improving the context windows of Large Language Models (LLMs). To quantify the real long-context capabilities of LLMs, evaluators such as the popular Needle in a Haystack have been developed to test LLMs over a large chunk of raw texts. While effective, current evaluations overlook the insight of how LLMs work with long-context code, i.e., repositories. To this end, we initiate the RepoQA benchmark to evaluate LLMs on long-context code understanding. Traditional needle testers ask LLMs to directly retrieve the answer from the context without necessary deep understanding. In RepoQA, we built our initial task, namely Searching Needle Function (SNF), which exercises LLMs to search functions given their natural-language description, i.e., LLMs cannot find the desired function if they cannot understand the description and code. RepoQA is multilingual and comprehensive: it includes 500 code search tasks gathered from 50 popular repositories across 5 modern programming languages. By evaluating 26 general and code-specific LLMs on RepoQA, we show (i) there is still a small gap between the best open and proprietary models; (ii) different models are good at different languages; and (iii) models may understand code better without comments.
Related papers
- DetectiveQA: Evaluating Long-Context Reasoning on Detective Novels [89.51834016940153]
We introduce DetectiveQA, a narrative reasoning benchmark with an average context length of over 100K tokens.
We use detective novels as data sources, which naturally have various reasoning elements.
We manually annotated 600 questions in Chinese and then also provided an English edition of the context information and questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-04T06:28:22Z) - NeedleBench: Can LLMs Do Retrieval and Reasoning in 1 Million Context Window? [37.64593022203498]
NeedleBench is a framework consisting of progressively more challenging tasks for assessing bilingual long-context capabilities.
We use the framework to assess how well the leading open-source models can identify key information relevant to the question.
We propose the Ancestral Trace Challenge to mimic the complexity of logical reasoning challenges that are likely to be present in real-world long-context tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T17:59:06Z) - LongIns: A Challenging Long-context Instruction-based Exam for LLMs [44.51209510772957]
Long-context capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been a hot topic in recent years.
We propose the LongIns benchmark dataset, a challenging long-context instruction-based exam for LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-25T14:31:26Z) - Ada-LEval: Evaluating long-context LLMs with length-adaptable benchmarks [76.43527940649939]
We introduce Ada-LEval, a benchmark for evaluating the long-context understanding of large language models (LLMs)
Ada-LEval includes two challenging subsets, TSort and BestAnswer, which enable a more reliable evaluation of LLMs' long context capabilities.
We evaluate 4 state-of-the-art closed-source API models and 6 open-source models with Ada-LEval.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-09T17:30:48Z) - InfiBench: Evaluating the Question-Answering Capabilities of Code Large Language Models [56.723509505549536]
InfiBench is the first large-scale freeform question-answering (QA) benchmark for code to our knowledge.
It comprises 234 carefully selected high-quality Stack Overflow questions that span across 15 programming languages.
We conduct a systematic evaluation for over 100 latest code LLMs on InfiBench, leading to a series of novel and insightful findings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-11T02:06:30Z) - Large Language Models: A Survey [69.72787936480394]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.
LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z) - If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code
Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code)
Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z) - CodeApex: A Bilingual Programming Evaluation Benchmark for Large
Language Models [43.655927559990616]
We propose CodeApex, a benchmark dataset focusing on the programming comprehension, code generation, and code correction abilities of LLMs.
We evaluate 12 widely used LLMs, including both general-purpose and specialized models.
GPT-4 exhibits the best programming capabilities, achieving approximate accuracy of 69%, 54%, and 66% on the three tasks, respectively.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-05T04:12:01Z) - Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with
External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks.
This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)
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.