HackerRank-ASTRA: Evaluating Correctness & Consistency of Large Language Models on cross-domain multi-file project problems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00226v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:47:02 GMT
• Title: HackerRank-ASTRA: Evaluating Correctness & Consistency of Large Language Models on cross-domain multi-file project problems
• Authors: Jun Xing, Mayur Bhatia, Sahil Phulwani, Darshan Suresh, Rafik Matta,
• Abstract summary: The HackerRank-ASTRA Benchmark introduces project-based coding problems that mirror real-world scenarios. It evaluates model consistency through 32 runs (k = 32) and median standard deviation. The top three models -- o1, o1-preview, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet-1022 -- achieved comparable average scores of 75%.
• Score: 2.4241401076864
• License:
• Abstract: Evaluating the real-world applicability of large language models (LLMs) provides valuable insights for their development and use in software development tasks. Existing benchmarks often focus on standalone coding problems or specific libraries, overlooking multi-file, project-based scenarios and lacking a rigorous evaluation of consistency. The HackerRank-ASTRA Benchmark introduces project-based coding problems that mirror real-world scenarios. It evaluates model consistency through 32 runs (k = 32) and median standard deviation while incorporating taxonomy-level analysis to assess sub-skill capabilities. Initial evaluations on 65 problems show that the top three models -- o1, o1-preview, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet-1022 -- achieved comparable average scores of 75%, with no statistically significant differences in performance. Notably, Claude-3.5-Sonnet-1022 demonstrated the highest consistency across problems, with low variability (SD = 0.0497), which was statistically significant compared to other models, highlighting its reliability for real-world software development tasks.

Related papers

• From Correctness to Comprehension: AI Agents for Personalized Error Diagnosis in Education [24.970741456147447]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive mathematical reasoning capabilities, achieving near-perfect performance on benchmarks like GSM8K. However, their application in personalized education remains limited due to an overemphasis on correctness over error diagnosis and feedback generation. We introduce textbfMathCCS, a benchmark designed for systematic error analysis and tailored feedback. Second, we develop a sequential error analysis framework that leverages historical data to track trends and improve diagnostic precision. Third, we propose a multi-agent collaborative framework that combines a Time Series Agent for historical analysis and an MLLM Agent for real-
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T14:57:51Z)
• EquiBench: Benchmarking Code Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models via Equivalence Checking [54.354203142828084]
  We present the task of equivalence checking as a new way to evaluate the code reasoning abilities of large language models. We introduce EquiBench, a dataset of 2400 program pairs spanning four programming languages and six equivalence categories. Our evaluation of 17 state-of-the-art LLMs shows that OpenAI o3-mini achieves the highest overall accuracy of 78.0%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:54:25Z)
• IHEval: Evaluating Language Models on Following the Instruction Hierarchy [67.33509094445104]
  The instruction hierarchy establishes a priority order from system messages to user messages, conversation history, and tool outputs. Despite its importance, this topic receives limited attention, and there is a lack of comprehensive benchmarks for evaluating models' ability to follow the instruction hierarchy. We bridge this gap by introducing IHEval, a novel benchmark covering cases where instructions in different priorities either align or conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T19:35:28Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Uncovering Weaknesses in Neural Code Generation [21.552898575210534]
  We assess the quality of generated code using match-based and execution-based metrics, then conduct thematic analysis to develop a taxonomy of nine types of weaknesses. In the CoNaLa dataset, inaccurate prompts are a notable problem, causing all large models to fail in 26.84% of cases. Missing pivotal semantics is a pervasive issue across benchmarks, with one or more large models omitting key semantics in 65.78% of CoNaLa tasks. All models struggle with proper API usage, a challenge amplified by vague or complex prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-13T07:31:43Z)
• The Fault in our Stars: Quality Assessment of Code Generation Benchmarks [0.5137309756089941]
  We conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. We analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:02:58Z)
• Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Trees [119.57169648859707]
  We introduce Eurus, a suite of large language models (LLMs) optimized for reasoning. Eurus models achieve state-of-the-art results among open-source models on a diverse set of benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T16:25:30Z)
• Language Models for Code Completion: A Practical Evaluation [13.174471984950857]
  This study provides both quantitative and qualitative assessments of three public code language models when completing real-world code. We collected real auto-completion usage data for over a year from more than 1200 users, resulting in over 600K valid completions. We found that 66.3% of failures were due to the models' limitations, 24.4% occurred due to inappropriate model usage in a development context, and 9.3% were valid requests that developers overwrote.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:43:55Z)
• Holistic Evaluation of Language Models [183.94891340168175]
  Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T18:51:34Z)
• 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.