Validating LLM-Generated Programs with Metamorphic Prompt Testing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06864v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:40:17 GMT
• Title: Validating LLM-Generated Programs with Metamorphic Prompt Testing
• Authors: Xiaoyin Wang, Dakai Zhu,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle. This paper proposes a novel solution called metamorphic prompt testing to address these challenges. Our evaluation on HumanEval shows that metamorphic prompt testing is able to detect 75 percent of the erroneous programs generated by GPT-4, with a false positive rate of 8.6 percent.
• Score: 8.785973653167112
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The latest paradigm shift in software development brings in the innovation and automation afforded by Large Language Models (LLMs), showcased by Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), which has shown remarkable capacity to generate code autonomously, significantly reducing the manual effort required for various programming tasks. Although, the potential benefits of LLM-generated code are vast, most notably in efficiency and rapid prototyping, as LLMs become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle and hence the supply chain, complex and multifaceted challenges arise as the code generated from these language models carry profound questions on quality and correctness. Research is required to comprehensively explore these critical concerns surrounding LLM-generated code. In this paper, we propose a novel solution called metamorphic prompt testing to address these challenges. Our intuitive observation is that intrinsic consistency always exists among correct code pieces but may not exist among flawed code pieces, so we can detect flaws in the code by detecting inconsistencies. Therefore, we can vary a given prompt to multiple prompts with paraphrasing, and to ask the LLM to acquire multiple versions of generated code, so that we can validate whether the semantic relations still hold in the acquired code through cross-validation. Our evaluation on HumanEval shows that metamorphic prompt testing is able to detect 75 percent of the erroneous programs generated by GPT-4, with a false positive rate of 8.6 percent.

Related papers

• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• RGD: Multi-LLM Based Agent Debugger via Refinement and Generation Guidance [0.6062751776009752]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown incredible potential in code generation tasks. LLMs can generate code based on task descriptions, but accuracy remains limited. We introduce a novel architecture of LLM-based agents for code generation and automatic debug: Refinement and Guidance debugger (RGD) RGD decomposes the code generation task into multiple steps, ensuring a clearer workflow and enabling iterative code refinement based on self-reflection and feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T05:07:02Z)
• An Empirical Study on Self-correcting Large Language Models for Data Science Code Generation [1.335664823620186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently advanced many applications on software engineering tasks. CoT-SelfEvolve iteratively and automatically refines code through a self-correcting process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T09:19:09Z)
• 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)
• Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code? [10.519984835232359]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code generation. It is unclear what kinds of code generation errors LLMs can make. We analyzed incorrect code snippets generated by six popular LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• Chain of Targeted Verification Questions to Improve the Reliability of Code Generated by LLMs [10.510325069289324]
  We propose a self-refinement method aimed at improving the reliability of code generated by LLMs. Our approach is based on targeted Verification Questions (VQs) to identify potential bugs within the initial code. Our method attempts to repair these potential bugs by re-prompting the LLM with the targeted VQs and the initial code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T19:02:50Z)
• CodeIP: A Grammar-Guided Multi-Bit Watermark for Large Language Models of Code [56.019447113206006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in code generation. CodeIP is a novel multi-bit watermarking technique that embeds additional information to preserve provenance details. Experiments conducted on a real-world dataset across five programming languages demonstrate the effectiveness of CodeIP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T04:25:04Z)
• 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)
• StepCoder: Improve Code Generation with Reinforcement Learning from Compiler Feedback [58.20547418182074]
  We introduce StepCoder, a novel framework for code generation, consisting of two main components. CCCS addresses the exploration challenge by breaking the long sequences code generation task into a Curriculum of Code Completion Subtasks. FGO only optimize the model by masking the unexecuted code segments to provide Fine-Grained Optimization. Our method improves the ability to explore the output space and outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in corresponding benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T13:14:31Z)
• Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs [65.2379940117181]
  We introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:24Z)
• Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unparalleled prowess in mimicking human-like text generation and processing. The potential to transform natural language prompts into executable code promises a major shift in software development practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T23:41:41Z)

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.