LLM4VV: Exploring LLM-as-a-Judge for Validation and Verification Testsuites

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11729v2
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 02:38:56 GMT
• Title: LLM4VV: Exploring LLM-as-a-Judge for Validation and Verification Testsuites
• Authors: Zachariah Sollenberger, Jay Patel, Christian Munley, Aaron Jarmusch, Sunita Chandrasekaran,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLM) are evolving and have significantly revolutionized the landscape of software development. This paper explores the idea of judging tests used to evaluate compiler implementations of directive-based programming models.
• Score: 6.796136787585992
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLM) are evolving and have significantly revolutionized the landscape of software development. If used well, they can significantly accelerate the software development cycle. At the same time, the community is very cautious of the models being trained on biased or sensitive data, which can lead to biased outputs along with the inadvertent release of confidential information. Additionally, the carbon footprints and the un-explainability of these black box models continue to raise questions about the usability of LLMs. With the abundance of opportunities LLMs have to offer, this paper explores the idea of judging tests used to evaluate compiler implementations of directive-based programming models as well as probe into the black box of LLMs. Based on our results, utilizing an agent-based prompting approach and setting up a validation pipeline structure drastically increased the quality of DeepSeek Coder, the LLM chosen for the evaluation purposes.

Related papers

• FVEval: Understanding Language Model Capabilities in Formal Verification of Digital Hardware [4.480157114854711]
  We present FVEval, the first comprehensive benchmark for characterizing large language models (LLMs) performance in tasks pertaining to formal verification (FV) The benchmark consists of three sub-tasks that measure LLM capabilities at different levels. We present both collections of expert-written verification collateral and methodologies to scalably generate synthetic examples aligned with FV.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T21:48:57Z)
• Evaluating Language Models for Generating and Judging Programming Feedback [4.743413681603463]
  Large language models (LLMs) have transformed research and practice across a wide range of domains. We evaluate the efficiency of open-source LLMs in generating high-quality feedback for programming assignments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T21:44:11Z)
• 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)
• Breaking the Silence: the Threats of Using LLMs in Software Engineering [12.368546216271382]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained considerable traction within the Software Engineering (SE) community. This paper initiates an open discussion on potential threats to the validity of LLM-based research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T11:02:19Z)
• Reflection-Tuning: Data Recycling Improves LLM Instruction-Tuning [79.32236399694077]
  Low-quality data in the training set are usually detrimental to instruction tuning. We propose a novel method, termed "reflection-tuning" This approach utilizes an oracle LLM to recycle the original training data by introspecting and enhancing the quality of instructions and responses in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T05:13:47Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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)
• From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuning [52.257422715393574]
  We introduce a self-guided methodology for Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously discern and select cherry samples from open-source datasets. Our key innovation, the Instruction-Following Difficulty (IFD) metric, emerges as a pivotal metric to identify discrepancies between a model's expected responses and its intrinsic generation capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T09:45:29Z)
• Evaluating and Explaining Large Language Models for Code Using Syntactic Structures [74.93762031957883]
  This paper introduces ASTxplainer, an explainability method specific to Large Language Models for code. At its core, ASTxplainer provides an automated method for aligning token predictions with AST nodes. We perform an empirical evaluation on 12 popular LLMs for code using a curated dataset of the most popular GitHub projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T18:50:57Z)
• Self-Checker: Plug-and-Play Modules for Fact-Checking with Large Language Models [75.75038268227554]
  Self-Checker is a framework comprising a set of plug-and-play modules that facilitate fact-checking. This framework provides a fast and efficient way to construct fact-checking systems in low-resource environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:46:07Z)

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.