How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06647v2
• Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:34:04 GMT
• Title: How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark
• Authors: Ruizhong Qiu, Weiliang Will Zeng, Hanghang Tong, James Ezick, Christopher Lott,
• Abstract summary: Development of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. We develop ENAMEL, a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code.
• Score: 39.13045037676502
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .

Related papers

• ECCO: Can We Improve Model-Generated Code Efficiency Without Sacrificing Functional Correctness? [12.862825053595934]
  ECCO is a benchmark for evaluating program efficiency via two paradigms: natural language (NL) based code generation and history-based code editing. We find that adding execution information often helps maintain functional correctness, and NL feedback enhances more on efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T05:47:40Z)
• 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)
• Iterative or Innovative? A Problem-Oriented Perspective for Code Optimization [81.88668100203913]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in solving a wide range of programming tasks. In this paper, we explore code optimization with a focus on performance enhancement, specifically aiming to optimize code for minimal execution time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T16:10:10Z)
• On Evaluating the Efficiency of Source Code Generated by LLMs [31.8121544062256]
  More efficient code can lead to higher performance and execution efficiency of programs and software completed by LLM-assisted programming. First, we evaluate the efficiency of the code generated by LLMs on two benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP. Then, we choose a set of programming problems from the online judge platform LeetCode to conduct a more difficult evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T05:59:39Z)
• The RealHumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models' Abilities to Support Programmers [44.28269395385471]
  We study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with large language models (LLMs) We introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T15:20:57Z)
• Mercury: A Code Efficiency Benchmark for Code Large Language Models [41.51235610016959]
  We present Mercury, the first code efficiency benchmark for Large Language Models for Code (Code LLMs) It comprises 1,889 Python tasks, each accompanied by adequate solutions that serve as real-world efficiency baselines. We introduce a new metric Beyond, which computes a runtime-percentile-weighted Pass score to reflect functional correctness and code efficiency simultaneously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T17:53:22Z)
• Assured LLM-Based Software Engineering [51.003878077888686]
  This paper is an outline of the content of the keynote by Mark Harman at the International Workshop on Interpretability, Robustness, and Benchmarking in Neural Software Engineering, Monday 15th April 2024, Lisbon, Portugal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T20:38:46Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [20.45045253933097]
  We propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator. We show that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T05:46:48Z)
• Learning to Optimize: A Primer and A Benchmark [94.29436694770953]
  Learning to optimize (L2O) is an emerging approach that leverages machine learning to develop optimization methods. This article is poised to be the first comprehensive survey and benchmark of L2O for continuous optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T20:46:20Z)

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.