LLM4DS: Evaluating Large Language Models for Data Science Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11908v1
• Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:43:26 GMT
• Title: LLM4DS: Evaluating Large Language Models for Data Science Code Generation
• Authors: Nathalia Nascimento, Everton Guimaraes, Sai Sanjna Chintakunta, Santhosh Anitha Boominathan,
• Abstract summary: This paper empirically assesses the performance of four leading AI assistants-Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4 Turbo), ChatGPT (o1-preview), Claude (3.5 Sonnet) and Perplexity Labs (Llama-3.1-70b-instruct) All models exceeded a 50% success rate, confirming their capability beyond random chance. ChatGPT demonstrated consistent performance across varying difficulty levels, while Claude's success rate fluctuated with task complexity.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation in data science offers substantial potential for enhancing tasks such as data manipulation, statistical analysis, and visualization. However, the effectiveness of these models in the data science domain remains underexplored. This paper presents a controlled experiment that empirically assesses the performance of four leading LLM-based AI assistants-Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4 Turbo), ChatGPT (o1-preview), Claude (3.5 Sonnet), and Perplexity Labs (Llama-3.1-70b-instruct)-on a diverse set of data science coding challenges sourced from the Stratacratch platform. Using the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach, we evaluated each model's effectiveness across task types (Analytical, Algorithm, Visualization) and varying difficulty levels. Our findings reveal that all models exceeded a 50% baseline success rate, confirming their capability beyond random chance. Notably, only ChatGPT and Claude achieved success rates significantly above a 60% baseline, though none of the models reached a 70% threshold, indicating limitations in higher standards. ChatGPT demonstrated consistent performance across varying difficulty levels, while Claude's success rate fluctuated with task complexity. Hypothesis testing indicates that task type does not significantly impact success rate overall. For analytical tasks, efficiency analysis shows no significant differences in execution times, though ChatGPT tended to be slower and less predictable despite high success rates. This study provides a structured, empirical evaluation of LLMs in data science, delivering insights that support informed model selection tailored to specific task demands. Our findings establish a framework for future AI assessments, emphasizing the value of rigorous evaluation beyond basic accuracy measures.

Related papers

• How Hard is this Test Set? NLI Characterization by Exploiting Training Dynamics [49.9329723199239]
  We propose a method for the automated creation of a challenging test set without relying on the manual construction of artificial and unrealistic examples. We categorize the test set of popular NLI datasets into three difficulty levels by leveraging methods that exploit training dynamics. When our characterization method is applied to the training set, models trained with only a fraction of the data achieve comparable performance to those trained on the full dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T13:39:21Z)
• Investigating the Impact of Hard Samples on Accuracy Reveals In-class Data Imbalance [4.291589126905706]
  In the AutoML domain, test accuracy is heralded as the quintessential metric for evaluating model efficacy. However, the reliability of test accuracy as the primary performance metric has been called into question. The distribution of hard samples between training and test sets affects the difficulty levels of those sets. We propose a benchmarking procedure for comparing hard sample identification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T11:38:14Z)
• DSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents to Becoming Data Science Experts? [58.330879414174476]
  We introduce DSBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate data science agents with realistic tasks. This benchmark includes 466 data analysis tasks and 74 data modeling tasks, sourced from Eloquence and Kaggle competitions. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, LVLMs, and agents shows that they struggle with most tasks, with the best agent solving only 34.12% of data analysis tasks and achieving a 34.74% Relative Performance Gap (RPG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T02:08:00Z)
• MMSci: A Dataset for Graduate-Level Multi-Discipline Multimodal Scientific Understanding [59.41495657570397]
  This dataset includes figures such as schematic diagrams, simulated images, macroscopic/microscopic photos, and experimental visualizations. We developed benchmarks for scientific figure captioning and multiple-choice questions, evaluating six proprietary and over ten open-source models. The dataset and benchmarks will be released to support further research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T00:40:53Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• Monte Carlo Tree Search Boosts Reasoning via Iterative Preference Learning [55.96599486604344]
  We introduce an approach aimed at enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) through an iterative preference learning process. We use Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to iteratively collect preference data, utilizing its look-ahead ability to break down instance-level rewards into more granular step-level signals. The proposed algorithm employs Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to update the LLM policy using this newly generated step-level preference data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T11:10:24Z)
• Data Interpreter: An LLM Agent For Data Science [43.13678782387546]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have shown effectiveness across many applications. However, their use in data science scenarios requiring solving long-term interconnected tasks, dynamic data adjustments and domain expertise remains challenging. We present Data Interpreter, an LLM-based agent designed to automatically solve various data science problems end-to-end.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T19:49:55Z)
• Exploring the Impact of Instruction Data Scaling on Large Language Models: An Empirical Study on Real-World Use Cases [17.431381376675432]
  In this paper we explore the performance of large language models based on instruction tuning across different scales of instruction data. With Bloomz-7B1-mt as the base model, the results show that merely increasing the amount of instruction data leads to continuous improvement in tasks such as open-ended generation. We propose potential future research directions such as effectively selecting high-quality training data, scaling base models and training methods specialized for hard tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-26T14:49:37Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

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.