FairCode: Evaluating Social Bias of LLMs in Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05396v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:42:23 GMT
• Title: FairCode: Evaluating Social Bias of LLMs in Code Generation
• Authors: Yongkang Du, Jen-tse Huang, Jieyu Zhao, Lu Lin,
• Abstract summary: We introduce FairCode, a novel benchmark for evaluating bias in code generation. FairCode comprises two tasks: function implementation and test case generation. We propose a new metric, FairScore, to assess model performance on this benchmark.
• Score: 25.358230310973248
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant capability in code generation, drawing increasing attention to the evaluation of the quality and safety of their outputs. However, research on bias in code generation remains limited. Existing studies typically assess bias by applying malicious prompts or reapply tasks and dataset for discriminative models. Given that LLMs are often aligned with human values and that prior datasets are not fully optimized for code-related tasks, there is a pressing need for benchmarks specifically designed for evaluating code models. In this study, we introduce FairCode, a novel benchmark for evaluating bias in code generation. FairCode comprises two tasks: function implementation and test case generation, each evaluating social bias through diverse scenarios. Additionally, we propose a new metric, FairScore, to assess model performance on this benchmark. We conduct experiments on widely used LLMs and provide a comprehensive analysis of the results. The findings reveal that all tested LLMs exhibit bias. The code is available at https://github.com/YongkDu/FairCode.

Related papers

• 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)
• VersiCode: Towards Version-controllable Code Generation [58.82709231906735]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made tremendous strides in code generation, but existing research fails to account for the dynamic nature of software development. We propose two novel tasks aimed at bridging this gap: version-specific code completion (VSCC) and version-aware code migration (VACM) We conduct an extensive evaluation on VersiCode, which reveals that version-controllable code generation is indeed a significant challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T16:15:06Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• 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)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• Large Language Model-Aware In-Context Learning for Code Generation [75.68709482932903]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive in-context learning (ICL) ability in code generation. We propose a novel learning-based selection approach named LAIL (LLM-Aware In-context Learning) for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T06:12:58Z)
• Bias Testing and Mitigation in LLM-based Code Generation [23.787124657688267]
  This paper presents a novel bias testing framework specifically designed for code generation tasks. Our findings reveal that 20.29% to 44.93% code functions generated by the models under study are biased when handling bias sensitive tasks. To mitigate bias for code generation models, we evaluate five bias mitigation prompt strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-03T07:14:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.