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
- 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) - Agent-Driven Automatic Software Improvement [55.2480439325792]
This research proposal aims to explore innovative solutions by focusing on the deployment of agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs)
The iterative nature of agents, which allows for continuous learning and adaptation, can help surpass common challenges in code generation.
We aim to use the iterative feedback in these systems to further fine-tune the LLMs underlying the agents, becoming better aligned to the task of automated software improvement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-24T15:45:22Z) - 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) - 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 [69.99031792995348]
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) - Mutation-based Consistency Testing for Evaluating the Code Understanding
Capability of LLMs [5.549095839198671]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in processing both natural and programming languages.
We propose a novel method to assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, particularly focusing on subtle differences between code and its descriptions.
We apply different types of code mutations, such as operator replacement and statement deletion, to generate inconsistent code-description pairs.
We conduct a case study on the two popular LLMs, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, using the state-of-the-art code generation benchmark, HumanEval-X.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-11T14:27:43Z) - 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) - Test-Case-Driven Programming Understanding in Large Language Models for
Better Code Generation [15.166827643436346]
muFiX is a novel prompting technique to improve the code generation performance of large language models (LLMs)
It first exploits test case analysis to obtain specification understanding and enables a self-improvement process.
muFiX further fixes the specification understanding towards the direction reducing the gap between the provided understanding and the actual understanding.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-28T02:58:07Z) - CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep
Reinforcement Learning [92.36705236706678]
"CodeRL" is a new framework for program synthesis tasks through pretrained LMs and deep reinforcement learning.
During inference, we introduce a new generation procedure with a critical sampling strategy.
For the model backbones, we extended the encoder-decoder architecture of CodeT5 with enhanced learning objectives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-05T02:42:15Z)
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.