Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12655v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:25:34 GMT
• Title: Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review
• Authors: Debalina Ghosh Paul, Hong Zhu, Ian Bayley,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been developed to assist programming tasks including the generation of program code from natural language input. This paper provides a critical review of the existing work on the testing and evaluation of these tools.
• Score: 4.181146104301203
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), a large number of machine learning models have been developed to assist programming tasks including the generation of program code from natural language input. However, how to evaluate such LLMs for this task is still an open problem despite of the great amount of research efforts that have been made and reported to evaluate and compare them. This paper provides a critical review of the existing work on the testing and evaluation of these tools with a focus on two key aspects: the benchmarks and the metrics used in the evaluations. Based on the review, further research directions are discussed.

Related papers

• A Survey on Evaluating Large Language Models in Code Generation Tasks [30.256255254277914]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current methods and metrics used to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation tasks. With the rapid growth in demand for automated software development, LLMs have demonstrated significant potential in the field of code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T12:56:06Z)
• Beyond Metrics: A Critical Analysis of the Variability in Large Language Model Evaluation Frameworks [3.773596042872403]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, the need for robust and standardized evaluation benchmarks becomes paramount. Various frameworks have emerged as noteworthy contributions to the field, offering comprehensive evaluation tests and benchmarks. This paper provides an exploration and critical analysis of some of these evaluation methodologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and impact on advancing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:37:14Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models [60.522749986793094]
  We draw on three years of experience in evaluating large language models to provide guidance and lessons for researchers. We present the Language Model Evaluation Harness (lm-eval), an open source library for independent, reproducible, and evaluation of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T16:50:49Z)
• Benchmarking Educational Program Repair [4.981275578987307]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be used to generate learning resources, improve error messages, and provide feedback on code. There is a pressing need for standardization and benchmarks that facilitate the equitable comparison of competing approaches. In this article, we propose a novel educational program repair benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T18:23:59Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)

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.