A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18019v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 03:25:44 GMT
• Title: A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models
• Authors: Ruida Hu, Chao Peng, Jingyi Ren, Bo Jiang, Xiangxin Meng, Qinyun Wu, Pengfei Gao, Xinchen Wang, Cuiyun Gao,
• Abstract summary: FAUN-Eval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs. It is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories. We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models.
• Score: 11.087034068992653
• License:
• Abstract: Automatically resolving software issues is crucial for software development in practice, impacting the software quality and user experience. The process of resolving real-world issues encompasses tasks such as question-answering (QA), fault localization, and code editing. Existing benchmarks such as HumanEval fall short in their ability to assess LLMs' proficiency in solving issues within a codebase. Although benchmarks like SWE-Bench are designed to evaluate the LLMs' capability to handle real-world GitHub issues, the end-to-end evaluation method cannot provide granular insights on the performance of subtasks involved in issue solving. To address existing deficiencies in benchmarking LLMs for practical software engineering tasks, we introduce FAUN-Eval, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs. FAUN-Eval systematically assesses LLMs across three distinct tasks: QA, fault localization, and code editing. This benchmark is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories. For each entry, issue and pull request (PR) pairs are meticulously compiled and validated using cross-referencing and keyword verification methods. FAUN-Eval includes 300 entries and employs both LLM and manual checks to ensure data quality. We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models. Our experimental results reveal several key findings. We find that the top-performing LLMs differ across the different tasks. Additionally, features in issues may lead LLMs to generate incorrect information. Moreover, models may vary in their proficiency with texts of different lengths.

Related papers

• Integrating Expert Knowledge into Logical Programs via LLMs [3.637365301757111]
  ExKLoP is a framework designed to evaluate how effectively Large Language Models integrate expert knowledge into logical reasoning systems. This capability is especially valuable in engineering, where expert knowledge-such as manufacturer-recommended operational ranges-can be directly embedded into automated monitoring systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T19:18:23Z)
• Leveraging Online Olympiad-Level Math Problems for LLMs Training and Contamination-Resistant Evaluation [55.21013307734612]
  AoPS-Instruct is a dataset of more than 600,000 high-quality QA pairs. LiveAoPSBench is an evolving evaluation set with timestamps, derived from the latest forum data. Our work presents a scalable approach to creating and maintaining large-scale, high-quality datasets for advanced math reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T06:39:38Z)
• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Enhancing Fault Localization Through Ordered Code Analysis with LLM Agents and Self-Reflection [8.22737389683156]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising improvements in fault localization by enhancing code comprehension and reasoning. We introduce LLM4FL, a novel LLM-agent-based fault localization approach that integrates SBFL rankings with a divide-and-conquer strategy. Our results demonstrate that LLM4FL outperforms AutoFL by 19.27% in Top-1 accuracy and surpasses state-of-the-art supervised techniques such as DeepFL and Grace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T16:47:34Z)
• VulnLLMEval: A Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models in Software Vulnerability Detection and Patching [0.9208007322096533]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in tasks like code translation. This paper introduces VulnLLMEval, a framework designed to assess the performance of LLMs in identifying and patching vulnerabilities in C code. Our study includes 307 real-world vulnerabilities extracted from the Linux kernel.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T22:00:20Z)
• 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)
• ERBench: An Entity-Relationship based Automatically Verifiable Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models [46.07900122810749]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performances in various applications, yet evaluating them is still challenging. We contend that utilizing existing relational databases is a promising approach for constructing benchmarks. We propose ERBench, which uses these integrity constraints to convert any database into an LLM benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:42:36Z)
• PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
  We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels. We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings. We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities [51.903537096207]
  This paper embarks on a deep exploration of the problems, methods, and opportunities related to model editing for LLMs. We provide an exhaustive overview of the task definition and challenges associated with model editing, along with an in-depth empirical analysis of the most progressive methods currently at our disposal. Our objective is to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and feasibility of each editing technique, thereby assisting the community in making informed decisions on the selection of the most appropriate method for a specific task or context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T16:00:00Z)

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.