Generating Unseen Code Tests In Infinitum

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19772v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:11:20 GMT
• Title: Generating Unseen Code Tests In Infinitum
• Authors: Marcel Zalmanovici, Orna Raz, Eitan Farchi, Iftach Freund,
• Abstract summary: We present a method for creating benchmark variations that generalize across coding tasks and programming languages. We implement one benchmark, called textitauto-regression, for the task of text-to-code generation in Python.
• Score: 1.0674604700001968
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are used for many tasks, including those related to coding. An important aspect of being able to utilize LLMs is the ability to assess their fitness for specific usages. The common practice is to evaluate LLMs against a set of benchmarks. While benchmarks provide a sound foundation for evaluation and comparison of alternatives, they suffer from the well-known weakness of leaking into the training data \cite{Xu2024Benchmarking}. We present a method for creating benchmark variations that generalize across coding tasks and programming languages, and may also be applied to in-house code bases. Our approach enables ongoing generation of test-data thus mitigating the leaking into the training data issue. We implement one benchmark, called \textit{auto-regression}, for the task of text-to-code generation in Python. Auto-regression is specifically created to aid in debugging and in tracking model generation changes as part of the LLM regression testing process.

Related papers

• Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need [52.01920740114261]
  We propose a simple and effective data leakage detection method based on the contents of multiple-choice options. Our method is able to work under black-box conditions without access to model training data or weights. We evaluate the degree of data leakage of 31 mainstream open-source LLMs on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T11:09:44Z)
• DOMAINEVAL: An Auto-Constructed Benchmark for Multi-Domain Code Generation [48.11754113512047]
  This study includes a code generation benchmark dataset DOMAINEVAL, encompassing six popular domains. Our pipeline works in a fully automated manner, enabling a push-bottom construction from code repositories into formatted subjects under study. The contributions of this study include a code generation benchmark dataset DOMAINEVAL, encompassing six popular domains, a fully automated pipeline for constructing code benchmarks, and an identification of the limitations of LLMs in code generation tasks based on their performance on DOMAINEVAL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T16:33:58Z)
• TESTEVAL: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Test Case Generation [15.343859279282848]
  We propose TESTEVAL, a novel benchmark for test case generation with large language models (LLMs) We collect 210 Python programs from an online programming platform, LeetCode, and design three different tasks: overall coverage, targeted line/branch coverage, and targeted path coverage. We find that generating test cases to cover specific program lines/branches/paths is still challenging for current LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T22:07:50Z)
• CodecLM: Aligning Language Models with Tailored Synthetic Data [51.59223474427153]
  We introduce CodecLM, a framework for adaptively generating high-quality synthetic data for instruction-following abilities. We first encode seed instructions into metadata, which are concise keywords generated on-the-fly to capture the target instruction distribution. We also introduce Self-Rubrics and Contrastive Filtering during decoding to tailor data-efficient samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T21:15:36Z)
• Top Leaderboard Ranking = Top Coding Proficiency, Always? EvoEval: Evolving Coding Benchmarks via LLM [13.324171480106715]
  EvoEval is a program synthesis benchmark suite created by evolving existing benchmarks into different targeted domains. Our study shows that compared to the high performance obtained on standard benchmarks like HumanEval, there is a significant drop in performance. We showcase various insights, including the brittleness of instruction-following models when encountering rewording or subtle changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T03:10:39Z)
• CAT-LM: Training Language Models on Aligned Code And Tests [19.526181671936243]
  Testing is an integral part of the software development process. Yet, writing tests is time-consuming and therefore often neglected. We propose the Aligned Code And Tests Language Model (CAT-LM), a GPT-style language model with 2.7 Billion parameters, trained on a corpus of Python and Java projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T19:52:22Z)
• RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedback [17.35361167578498]
  Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedback is a novel online RL framework with unit test feedback of multi-granularity for refining code LLMs. Our approach generates data in real-time during training and simultaneously utilizes fine-grained feedback signals to guide the model towards producing higher-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T05:18:18Z)
• Coarse-Tuning Models of Code with Reinforcement Learning Feedback [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) pre-trained on code have emerged as the dominant approach to program synthesis. We propose RLCF, that further trains a pre-trained LLM via reinforcement learning, using feedback from a grounding function that scores the quality of the code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T22:09:08Z)
• LeTI: Learning to Generate from Textual Interactions [60.425769582343506]
  We explore LMs' potential to learn from textual interactions (LETI) that not only check their correctness with binary labels but also pinpoint and explain errors in their outputs through textual feedback. Our focus is the code generation task, where the model produces code based on natural language instructions. LETI iteratively fine-tunes the model, using the objective LM, on a concatenation of natural language instructions, LM-generated programs, and textual feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T15:53:31Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)
• T5Score: Discriminative Fine-tuning of Generative Evaluation Metrics [94.69907794006826]
  We present a framework that combines the best of both worlds, using both supervised and unsupervised signals from whatever data we have available. We operationalize this idea by training T5Score, a metric that uses these training signals with mT5 as the backbone. T5Score achieves the best performance on all datasets against existing top-scoring metrics at the segment level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-12T06:29:04Z)

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.