Towards more realistic evaluation of LLM-based code generation: an experimental study and beyond

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06918v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:19:18 GMT
• Title: Towards more realistic evaluation of LLM-based code generation: an experimental study and beyond
• Authors: Dewu Zheng, Yanlin Wang, Ensheng Shi, Ruikai Zhang, Yuchi Ma, Hongyu Zhang, Zibin Zheng,
• Abstract summary: We conduct an empirical study to understand Large Language Models' code generation performance within settings that reflect the evolving nature of software development. We find that previous evolving-ignored evaluation approaches lead to inflated performance of the LLMs, ranging from 10.0% to 61.1%.
• Score: 36.1669124651617
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: To evaluate the code generation capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in complex real-world software development scenarios, many evaluation approaches have been developed. They typically leverage contextual code from the latest version of a project to facilitate LLMs in accurately generating the desired function. However, such evaluation approaches fail to consider the dynamic evolution of software projects over time, which we refer to as evolving-ignored situation, leading to issues of future context leakage and useful context missing. This in turn results in inaccurate evaluation of LLMs' performance. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to deeply understand LLMs' code generation performance within settings that reflect the evolving nature of software development. To achieve this, we first construct an evolving-aware repository-level code generation dataset, namely HumanEvo, equipped with an automated execution-based evaluation tool. Second, we manually categorize HumanEvo according to dependency levels to more comprehensively analyze the model's performance in generating functions with different dependency levels. Third, we conduct extensive experiments on HumanEvo with seven representative and diverse LLMs to verify the effectiveness of the proposed benchmark. We obtain many important findings through our experimental study. For example, we find that previous evolving-ignored evaluation approaches lead to inflated performance of the LLMs, ranging from 10.0% to 61.1%. Based on the findings, we give actionable suggestions on more realistic evaluation of LLMs on code generation. We also build a shared evolving-aware code generation toolbox to facilitate future research. Replication package including source code, datasets and appendix is available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/EvoEval.

Related papers

• CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin [68.95137938214862]
  We propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T07:43:55Z)
• 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)
• DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning Graph [70.79413606968814]
  We introduce Dynamic Evaluation of LLMs via Adaptive Reasoning Graph Evolvement (DARG) to dynamically extend current benchmarks with controlled complexity and diversity. Specifically, we first extract the reasoning graphs of data points in current benchmarks and then perturb the reasoning graphs to generate novel testing data. Such newly generated test samples can have different levels of complexity while maintaining linguistic diversity similar to the original benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:27:53Z)
• A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation [9.555952109820392]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered remarkable advancements across diverse code-related tasks. This survey aims to bridge the gap between academia and practical development by providing a comprehensive and up-to-date literature review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T17:48:15Z)
• A Survey on Self-Evolution of Large Language Models [116.54238664264928]
  Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced in various fields and intelligent agent applications. To address this issue, self-evolution approaches that enable LLMs to autonomously acquire, refine, and learn from experiences generated by the model itself are rapidly growing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:43:23Z)
• Automating Patch Set Generation from Code Review Comments Using Large Language Models [2.045040820541428]
  We provide code contexts to five popular Large Language Models (LLMs) We obtain the suggested code-changes (patch sets) derived from real-world code-review comments. The performance of each model is meticulously assessed by comparing their generated patch sets against the historical data of human-generated patch-sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T02:46:08Z)
• Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
  Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset. Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z)
• How Can LLM Guide RL? A Value-Based Approach [68.55316627400683]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has become the de facto standard practice for sequential decision-making problems by improving future acting policies with feedback. Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive capabilities in language understanding and generation, yet they fall short in exploration and self-improvement capabilities. We develop an algorithm named LINVIT that incorporates LLM guidance as a regularization factor in value-based RL, leading to significant reductions in the amount of data needed for learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:07:13Z)
• Copilot Evaluation Harness: Evaluating LLM-Guided Software Programming [12.355284125578342]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a focal point in modern software development. LLMs offer the potential to significantly augment developer productivity by serving as intelligent, chat-driven programming assistants. However, each system requires the LLM to be honed to its set of workspaces to ensure the best performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T03:51:34Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)

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.