Showing LLM-Generated Code Selectively Based on Confidence of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03234v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 08:51:31 GMT
• Title: Showing LLM-Generated Code Selectively Based on Confidence of LLMs
• Authors: Jia Li, Yuqi Zhu, Yongmin Li, Ge Li, Zhi Jin,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in code generation, but they may generate erroneous programs. Showing these erroneous programs to developers will waste developers' energies and introduce security risks. We propose HonestCoder, a novel LLM-based code generation approach.
• Score: 44.23673533981599
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in code generation, but they may generate erroneous programs. Reading a program takes ten times longer than writing it. Showing these erroneous programs to developers will waste developers' energies and introduce security risks to software. To address the above limitations, we propose HonestCoder, a novel LLM-based code generation approach. HonestCoder selectively shows the generated programs to developers based on LLMs' confidence. The confidence provides valuable insights into the correctness of generated programs. To achieve this goal, we propose a novel approach to estimate LLMs' confidence in code generation. It estimates confidence by measuring the multi-modal similarity between LLMs-generated programs. We collect and release a multilingual benchmark named TruthCodeBench, which consists of 2,265 samples and covers two popular programming languages (i.e., Python and Java). We apply HonestCoder to four popular LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-Coder and Code Llama) and evaluate it on TruthCodeBench. Based on the experiments, we obtain the following insights. (1) HonestCoder can effectively estimate LLMs' confidence and accurately determine the correctness of generated programs. For example, HonestCoder outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline by 27.79% in AUROC and 63.74% in AUCPR. (2) HonestCoder can decrease the number of erroneous programs shown to developers. Compared to eight baselines, it can show more correct programs and fewer erroneous programs to developers. (3) Compared to showing code indiscriminately, HonestCoder only adds slight time overhead (approximately 0.4 seconds per requirement). (4) We discuss future directions to facilitate the application of LLMs in software development. We hope this work can motivate broad discussions about measuring the reliability of LLMs' outputs in performing code-related tasks.

Related papers

• Crystal: Illuminating LLM Abilities on Language and Code [58.5467653736537]
  We propose a pretraining strategy to enhance the integration of natural language and coding capabilities. The resulting model, Crystal, demonstrates remarkable capabilities in both domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T10:28:46Z)
• On Evaluating the Efficiency of Source Code Generated by LLMs [31.8121544062256]
  More efficient code can lead to higher performance and execution efficiency of programs and software completed by LLM-assisted programming. First, we evaluate the efficiency of the code generated by LLMs on two benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP. Then, we choose a set of programming problems from the online judge platform LeetCode to conduct a more difficult evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T05:59:39Z)
• Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We? [25.451857140926943]
  Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs. We propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T05:37:16Z)
• InfiBench: Evaluating the Question-Answering Capabilities of Code Large Language Models [56.723509505549536]
  InfiBench is the first large-scale freeform question-answering (QA) benchmark for code to our knowledge. It comprises 234 carefully selected high-quality Stack Overflow questions that span across 15 programming languages. We conduct a systematic evaluation for over 100 latest code LLMs on InfiBench, leading to a series of novel and insightful findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T02:06:30Z)
• Assured LLM-Based Software Engineering [51.003878077888686]
  This paper is an outline of the content of the keynote by Mark Harman at the International Workshop on Interpretability, Robustness, and Benchmarking in Neural Software Engineering, Monday 15th April 2024, Lisbon, Portugal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T20:38:46Z)
• 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)
• CodeApex: A Bilingual Programming Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models [43.655927559990616]
  We propose CodeApex, a benchmark dataset focusing on the programming comprehension, code generation, and code correction abilities of LLMs. We evaluate 12 widely used LLMs, including both general-purpose and specialized models. GPT-4 exhibits the best programming capabilities, achieving approximate accuracy of 69%, 54%, and 66% on the three tasks, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T04:12:01Z)
• Do Large Language Models Pay Similar Attention Like Human Programmers When Generating Code? [10.249771123421432]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) attend to the same parts of a task description as human programmers during code generation. We manually analyzed 211 incorrect code snippets and found five attention patterns that can be used to explain many code generation errors. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T00:57:03Z)
• 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)

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.