Assessing Programming Task Difficulty for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21227v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:31:19 GMT
• Title: Assessing Programming Task Difficulty for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models
• Authors: Florian Tambon, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh, Giuliano Antoniol,
• Abstract summary: This paper devises a framework, HardEval, for assessing task difficulty for Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that HardEval can reliably identify the hard tasks within two code generation benchmarks, HumanEval+ and ClassEval. We also characterize 6 practical hard task topics which we used to generate new hard tasks.
• Score: 12.633996425882223
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) show promising potential in Software Engineering, especially for code-related tasks like code completion and code generation. LLMs' evaluation is generally centred around general metrics computed over benchmarks. While painting a macroscopic view of the benchmarks and of the LLMs' capacity, it is unclear how each programming task in these benchmarks assesses the capabilities of the LLMs. In particular, the difficulty level of the tasks in the benchmarks is not reflected in the score used to report the performance of the model. Yet, a model achieving a 90% score on a benchmark of predominantly easy tasks is likely less capable than a model achieving a 90% score on a benchmark containing predominantly difficult tasks. This paper devises a framework, HardEval, for assessing task difficulty for LLMs and crafting new tasks based on identified hard tasks. The framework uses a diverse array of prompts for a single task across multiple LLMs to obtain a difficulty score for each task of a benchmark. Using two code generation benchmarks, HumanEval+ and ClassEval, we show that HardEval can reliably identify the hard tasks within those benchmarks, highlighting that only 21% of HumanEval+ and 27% of ClassEval tasks are hard for LLMs. Through our analysis of task difficulty, we also characterize 6 practical hard task topics which we used to generate new hard tasks. Orthogonal to current benchmarking evaluation efforts, HardEval can assist researchers and practitioners in fostering better assessments of LLMs. The difficulty score can be used to identify hard tasks within existing benchmarks. This, in turn, can be leveraged to generate more hard tasks centred around specific topics either for evaluation or improvement of LLMs. HardEval generalistic approach can be applied to other domains such as code completion or Q/A.

Related papers

• VLABench: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Language-Conditioned Robotics Manipulation with Long-Horizon Reasoning Tasks [100.3234156027118]
  We present VLABench, an open-source benchmark for evaluating universal LCM task learning. VLABench provides 100 carefully designed categories of tasks, with strong randomization in each category of task and a total of 2000+ objects. The benchmark assesses multiple competencies including understanding of mesh&texture, spatial relationship, semantic instruction, physical laws, knowledge transfer and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T06:03:42Z)
• CARL-GT: Evaluating Causal Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [18.975064947089805]
  Causal reasoning capabilities are essential for large language models (LLMs) in a wide range of applications, such as education and healthcare. We provide a benchmark, named by CARL-GT, which evaluates CAusal Reasoning capabilities of large Language models using Graphs and Tabular data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T20:34:32Z)
• Addressing Data Leakage in HumanEval Using Combinatorial Test Design [1.9336815376402723]
  The HumanEval benchmark is composed of 164 hand-crafted tasks. A major barrier to a fair evaluation of LLMs using benchmarks like HumanEval is data contamination. We propose a new benchmark construction method where a benchmark is composed of template tasks that can be instantiated into new concrete tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T14:18:32Z)
• A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models [11.087034068992653]
  FAUN-Eval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs. It is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories. We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T03:25:44Z)
• Escalating LLM-based Code Translation Benchmarking into the Class-level Era [20.22104136730419]
  ClassEval-T is a class-level code translation benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) Built upon ClassEval, ClassEval-T extends into Java and C++ with complete code samples and test suites, requiring 360 person-hours for manual migration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T11:13:14Z)
• Easy2Hard-Bench: Standardized Difficulty Labels for Profiling LLM Performance and Generalization [126.27645170941268]
  We present Easy2Hard-Bench, a collection of 6 benchmark datasets spanning various domains. Each problem within these datasets is annotated with numerical difficulty scores. We provide a comprehensive analysis of their performance and generalization capabilities across varying levels of difficulty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T03:49:56Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions [72.56339136017759]
  We introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges Large Language Models (LLMs) to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks. Our evaluation shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%. We propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T15:52:04Z)
• Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? [54.667202878390526]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) have the potential to revolutionize our approach to tasks traditionally reliant on external tools like retrieval systems or databases. We introduce LOFT, a benchmark of real-world tasks requiring context up to millions of tokens designed to evaluate LCLMs' performance on in-context retrieval and reasoning. Our findings reveal LCLMs' surprising ability to rival state-of-the-art retrieval and RAG systems, despite never having been explicitly trained for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:28:58Z)
• Language Models can Exploit Cross-Task In-context Learning for Data-Scarce Novel Tasks [22.66167973623777]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed NLP with their remarkable In-context Learning (ICL) capabilities. This paper investigates whether LLMs can generalize from labeled examples of predefined tasks to novel tasks. We show that cross-task prompting leads to a remarkable performance boost of 107% for LLaMA-2 7B, 18.6% for LLaMA-2 13B, and 3.2% for GPT 3.5 on average over zero-shot prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T05:20:49Z)
• PECC: Problem Extraction and Coding Challenges [3.287942619833188]
  We introduce PECC, a novel benchmark derived from Advent Of Code (AoC) challenges and Project Euler. Unlike conventional benchmarks, PECC requires LLMs to interpret narrative-embedded problems, extract requirements, and generate code. Results show varying model performance between narrative and neutral problems, with specific challenges in the Euler math-based subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:02:14Z)
• PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
  We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels. We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings. We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z)
• TaskBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Task Automation [82.2932794189585]
  We introduce TaskBench, a framework to evaluate the capability of large language models (LLMs) in task automation. Specifically, task decomposition, tool selection, and parameter prediction are assessed. Our approach combines automated construction with rigorous human verification, ensuring high consistency with human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T18:02:44Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [27.271533306818732]
  Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses. Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios. We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety. Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z)

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.