Are Large Language Models Memorizing Bug Benchmarks?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13323v1
• Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 13:46:04 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Memorizing Bug Benchmarks?
• Authors: Daniel Ramos, Claudia Mamede, Kush Jain, Paulo Canelas, Catarina Gamboa, Claire Le Goues,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to various software engineering tasks, including code generation, bug detection, and repair. A growing concern within the software engineering community is that benchmarks may not reliably reflect true LLM performance due to the risk of data leakage. We systematically evaluate popular LLMs to assess their susceptibility to data leakage from widely used bug benchmarks.
• Score: 6.640077652362016
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to various software engineering tasks, including code generation, bug detection, and repair. To evaluate model performance in these domains, numerous bug benchmarks containing real-world bugs from software projects have been developed. However, a growing concern within the software engineering community is that these benchmarks may not reliably reflect true LLM performance due to the risk of data leakage. Despite this concern, limited research has been conducted to quantify the impact of potential leakage. In this paper, we systematically evaluate popular LLMs to assess their susceptibility to data leakage from widely used bug benchmarks. To identify potential leakage, we use multiple metrics, including a study of benchmark membership within commonly used training datasets, as well as analyses of negative log-likelihood and n-gram accuracy. Our findings show that certain models, in particular codegen-multi, exhibit significant evidence of memorization in widely used benchmarks like Defects4J, while newer models trained on larger datasets like LLaMa 3.1 exhibit limited signs of leakage. These results highlight the need for careful benchmark selection and the adoption of robust metrics to adequately assess models capabilities.

Related papers

• Outside the Comfort Zone: Analysing LLM Capabilities in Software Vulnerability Detection [9.652886240532741]
  This paper thoroughly analyses large language models' capabilities in detecting vulnerabilities within source code. We evaluate the performance of six open-source models that are specifically trained for vulnerability detection against six general-purpose LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T10:00:57Z)
• 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)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses. Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies. We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models [24.015208839742343]
  We introduce a detection pipeline utilizing Perplexity and N-gram accuracy, two simple and scalable metrics that gauge a model's prediction precision on benchmark. We reveal substantial instances of training even test set misuse, resulting in potentially unfair comparisons. We propose the "Benchmark Transparency Card" to encourage clear documentation of benchmark utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T16:05:36Z)
• Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Models [27.24738197172374]
  Large language models have achieved remarkable performance on various code generation benchmarks. There have been growing concerns regarding potential contamination of these benchmarks as they may be leaked into pretraining and finetuning data. We show that there are substantial overlap between popular code generation benchmarks and open training corpus, and models perform significantly better on the subset of the benchmarks where similar solutions are seen during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T21:45:35Z)
• DebugBench: Evaluating Debugging Capability of Large Language Models [80.73121177868357]
  DebugBench is a benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. We evaluate two commercial and four open-source models in a zero-shot scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T15:46:38Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code [6.301373791541809]
  This paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:32:12Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
  In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z)

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.