Can Language Models Replace Programmers? REPOCOD Says 'Not Yet'

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21647v3
• Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:24:10 GMT
• Title: Can Language Models Replace Programmers? REPOCOD Says 'Not Yet'
• Authors: Shanchao Liang, Yiran Hu, Nan Jiang, Lin Tan,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved high accuracy, i.e., more than 90% pass@1 in solving Python coding problems. REPOCOD is a code generation benchmark with 980 problems collected from 11 popular real-world projects. Each task in REPOCOD includes 313.5 developer-written test cases on average for better correctness evaluation.
• Score: 9.48622608877252
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved high accuracy, i.e., more than 90% pass@1, in solving Python coding problems in HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, whether LLMs achieve comparable code completion performance compared to human developers? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question using existing manual crafted or simple (e.g., single-line) code generation benchmarks, since such tasks fail to represent real-world software development tasks. In addition, existing benchmarks often use poor code correctness metrics, providing misleading conclusions. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a code generation benchmark with 980 problems collected from 11 popular real-world projects, with more than 58% of them requiring file-level or repository-level context information. In addition, REPOCOD has the longest average canonical solution length (331.6 tokens) and the highest average cyclomatic complexity (9.00) compared to existing benchmarks. Each task in REPOCOD includes 313.5 developer-written test cases on average for better correctness evaluation. In our evaluations of ten LLMs, none of the models achieve more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. REPOCOD is available at https://github.com/lt-asset/REPOCOD

Related papers

• Large Language Models as Code Executors: An Exploratory Study [29.545321608864295]
  This paper pioneers the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as code executors. We are the first to examine this feasibility across various LLMs, including OpenAI's o1, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, DeepSeek, and Qwen-Coder. We introduce an Iterative Instruction Prompting (IIP) technique that processes code snippets line by line, enhancing the accuracy of weaker models by an average of 7.22%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T08:23:22Z)
• CRUXEval-X: A Benchmark for Multilingual Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution [50.7413285637879]
  The CRUXEVAL-X code reasoning benchmark contains 19 programming languages. It comprises at least 600 subjects for each language, along with 19K content-consistent tests in total. Even a model trained solely on Python can achieve at most 34.4% Pass@1 in other languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:43:00Z)
• Generating Unseen Code Tests In Infinitum [1.0674604700001968]
  We present a method for creating benchmark variations that generalize across coding tasks and programming languages. We implement one benchmark, called textitauto-regression, for the task of text-to-code generation in Python.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T08:11:20Z)
• 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)
• 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 ChatGPT replace StackOverflow? A Study on Robustness and Reliability of Large Language Model Code Generation [8.575560293086289]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T18:36:28Z)
• Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [20.45045253933097]
  We propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator. We show that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T05:46:48Z)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)
• DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generation [70.96868419971756]
  DS-1000 is a code generation benchmark with a thousand data science problems spanning seven Python libraries. First, our problems reflect diverse, realistic, and practical use cases since we collected them from StackOverflow. Second, our automatic evaluation is highly specific (reliable) -- across all Codex-predicted solutions that our evaluation accept, only 1.8% of them are incorrect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T17:20:27Z)
• Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS [54.22600767666257]
  We introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 15% of the test cases of introductory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T17:58:42Z)

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.