CONGRA: Benchmarking Automatic Conflict Resolution

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14121v1
• Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 12:21:41 GMT
• Title: CONGRA: Benchmarking Automatic Conflict Resolution
• Authors: Qingyu Zhang, Liangcai Su, Kai Ye, Chenxiong Qian,
• Abstract summary: ConGra is a benchmarking scheme designed to evaluate the performance of software merging tools. We build a large-scale evaluation dataset based on 44,948 conflicts from 34 real-world projects.
• Score: 3.9910625211670485
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Resolving conflicts from merging different software versions is a challenging task. To reduce the overhead of manual merging, researchers develop various program analysis-based tools which only solve specific types of conflicts and have a limited scope of application. With the development of language models, researchers treat conflict code as text, which theoretically allows for addressing almost all types of conflicts. However, the absence of effective conflict difficulty grading methods hinders a comprehensive evaluation of large language models (LLMs), making it difficult to gain a deeper understanding of their limitations. Furthermore, there is a notable lack of large-scale open benchmarks for evaluating the performance of LLMs in automatic conflict resolution. To address these issues, we introduce ConGra, a CONflict-GRAded benchmarking scheme designed to evaluate the performance of software merging tools under varying complexity conflict scenarios. We propose a novel approach to classify conflicts based on code operations and use it to build a large-scale evaluation dataset based on 44,948 conflicts from 34 real-world projects. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on conflict resolution tasks using this dataset. By employing the dataset, we assess the performance of multiple state-of-the-art LLMs and code LLMs, ultimately uncovering two counterintuitive yet insightful phenomena. ConGra will be released at https://github.com/HKU-System-Security-Lab/ConGra.

Related papers

• LLM$\times$MapReduce: Simplified Long-Sequence Processing using Large Language Models [73.13933847198395]
  We propose a training-free framework for processing long texts, utilizing a divide-and-conquer strategy to achieve comprehensive document understanding. The proposed LLM$times$MapReduce framework splits the entire document into several chunks for LLMs to read and then aggregates the intermediate answers to produce the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T03:13:44Z)
• Insight Over Sight? Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs [55.74117540987519]
  This paper explores the problem of commonsense-level vision-knowledge conflict in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) We introduce an automated pipeline, augmented with human-in-the-loop quality control, to establish a benchmark aimed at simulating and assessing the conflicts in MLLMs. We evaluate the conflict-resolution capabilities of nine representative MLLMs across various model families and find a noticeable over-reliance on textual queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:31:17Z)
• ECon: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts [56.89209046429291]
  The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems. This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T07:41:17Z)
• Unraveling Cross-Modality Knowledge Conflicts in Large Vision-Language Models [33.76903352835436]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities for capturing and reasoning over multimodal inputs. These models are prone to parametric knowledge conflicts, which arise from inconsistencies of represented knowledge between their vision and language components. We present a systematic approach to detect, interpret, and mitigate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:59:28Z)
• AdaCAD: Adaptively Decoding to Balance Conflicts between Contextual and Parametric Knowledge [57.66282463340297]
  Knowledge conflict arises from discrepancies between information in the context of a large language model (LLM) and the knowledge stored in its parameters. We propose a fine-grained, instance-level approach called AdaCAD, which dynamically infers the weight of adjustment based on the degree of conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T16:35:18Z)
• MMAU: A Holistic Benchmark of Agent Capabilities Across Diverse Domains [54.117238759317004]
  Massive Multitask Agent Understanding (MMAU) benchmark features comprehensive offline tasks that eliminate the need for complex environment setups. It evaluates models across five domains, including Tool-use, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) QA, Data Science and Machine Learning coding, Contest-level programming and Mathematics. With a total of 20 meticulously designed tasks encompassing over 3K distinct prompts, MMAU provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the strengths and limitations of LLM agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T00:58:41Z)
• 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)
• Detecting Semantic Conflicts with Unit Tests [5.273883263686449]
  Branching and merging are common practices in software development, increasing developer's productivity. Modern merge techniques can resolve textual conflicts automatically, but they fail when the conflict arises at the semantic level. We proposeSemAntic Merge, a semantic merge tool based on the automated generation of unit tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T19:36:28Z)

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.