Is Functional Correctness Enough to Evaluate Code Language Models? Exploring Diversity of Generated Codes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14504v1
• Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 07:40:22 GMT
• Title: Is Functional Correctness Enough to Evaluate Code Language Models? Exploring Diversity of Generated Codes
• Authors: Heejae Chon, Seonghyeon Lee, Jinyoung Yeo, Dongha Lee,
• Abstract summary: Language models (LMs) have exhibited impressive abilities in generating codes from natural language requirements. We highlight the diversity of code generated by LMs as a critical criterion for evaluating their code generation capabilities. We propose a systematic approach to evaluate the diversity of generated code, utilizing various metrics for inter-code similarity as well as functional correctness.
• Score: 17.95094238686012
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) have exhibited impressive abilities in generating codes from natural language requirements. In this work, we highlight the diversity of code generated by LMs as a critical criterion for evaluating their code generation capabilities, in addition to functional correctness. Despite its practical implications, there is a lack of studies focused on assessing the diversity of generated code, which overlooks its importance in the development of code LMs. We propose a systematic approach to evaluate the diversity of generated code, utilizing various metrics for inter-code similarity as well as functional correctness. Specifically, we introduce a pairwise code similarity measure that leverages large LMs' capabilities in code understanding and reasoning, demonstrating the highest correlation with human judgment. We extensively investigate the impact of various factors on the quality of generated code, including model sizes, temperatures, training approaches, prompting strategies, and the difficulty of input problems. Our consistent observation of a positive correlation between the test pass score and the inter-code similarity score indicates that current LMs tend to produce functionally correct code with limited diversity.

Related papers

• 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)
• An Empirical Study on Capability of Large Language Models in Understanding Code Semantics [4.638578225024275]
  Large Language Models for Code (code LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various software engineering (SE) tasks. This paper introduces EMPICA, a framework designed to evaluate the capabilities of code LLMs in understanding code semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T03:40:58Z)
• Exploring Multi-Lingual Bias of Large Code Models in Code Generation [55.336629780101475]
  Code generation aims to synthesize code and fulfill functional requirements based on natural language (NL) specifications. Despite the effectiveness, we observe a noticeable multilingual bias in the generation performance of large code models (LCMs) LCMs demonstrate proficiency in generating solutions when provided with instructions in English, yet may falter when faced with semantically equivalent instructions in other NLs such as Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T08:51:49Z)
• Comments as Natural Logic Pivots: Improve Code Generation via Comment Perspective [85.48043537327258]
  We propose MANGO (comMents As Natural loGic pivOts), including a comment contrastive training strategy and a corresponding logical comment decoding strategy. Results indicate that MANGO significantly improves the code pass rate based on the strong baselines. The robustness of the logical comment decoding strategy is notably higher than the Chain-of-thoughts prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T08:30:46Z)
• Mutation-based Consistency Testing for Evaluating the Code Understanding Capability of LLMs [5.549095839198671]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in processing both natural and programming languages. We propose a novel method to assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, particularly focusing on subtle differences between code and its descriptions. We apply different types of code mutations, such as operator replacement and statement deletion, to generate inconsistent code-description pairs. We conduct a case study on the two popular LLMs, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, using the state-of-the-art code generation benchmark, HumanEval-X.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T14:27:43Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• MAgIC: Investigation of Large Language Model Powered Multi-Agent in Cognition, Adaptability, Rationality and Collaboration [102.41118020705876]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have marked a significant advancement in the field of natural language processing. As their applications extend into multi-agent environments, a need has arisen for a comprehensive evaluation framework. This work introduces a novel benchmarking framework specifically tailored to assess LLMs within multi-agent settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T21:46:27Z)
• Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unparalleled prowess in mimicking human-like text generation and processing. The potential to transform natural language prompts into executable code promises a major shift in software development practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T23:41:41Z)
• Benchmarking and Explaining Large Language Model-based Code Generation: A Causality-Centric Approach [12.214585409361126]
  Large language models (LLMs)- based code generation is a complex and powerful black-box model. We propose a novel causal graph-based representation of the prompt and the generated code. We illustrate the insights that our framework can provide by studying over 3 popular LLMs with over 12 prompt adjustment strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T14:56:26Z)
• CodeScore: Evaluating Code Generation by Learning Code Execution [34.08307174529496]
  We propose CodeScore, a large language model (LLM)-based CEM, which estimates the functional correctness of generated code on three input formats. CodeScore absolutely improves up to 58.87% correlation with functional correctness compared to other CEMs, achieves state-of-the-art performance, and effectively handles three input formats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-22T02:59:59Z)
• Enhancing Semantic Code Search with Multimodal Contrastive Learning and Soft Data Augmentation [50.14232079160476]
  We propose a new approach with multimodal contrastive learning and soft data augmentation for code search. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of our approach on a large-scale dataset with six programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-07T08:49:27Z)

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.