Bridging LLM-Generated Code and Requirements: Reverse Generation technique and SBC Metric for Developer Insights

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07835v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 01:12:11 GMT
• Title: Bridging LLM-Generated Code and Requirements: Reverse Generation technique and SBC Metric for Developer Insights
• Authors: Ahilan Ayyachamy Nadar Ponnusamy,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a novel scoring mechanism called the SBC score.<n>It is based on a reverse generation technique that leverages the natural language generation capabilities of Large Language Models.<n>Unlike direct code analysis, our approach reconstructs system requirements from AI-generated code and compares them with the original specifications.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering, particularly in code generation, has garnered significant attention. However, assessing the quality of AI-generated code remains a challenge due to the inherent complexity of programming tasks and the lack of robust evaluation metrics that align well with human judgment. Traditional token-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE, while commonly used in natural language processing, exhibit weak correlations with human assessments in code intelligence and verification tasks. Furthermore, these metrics are primarily research focused and are not designed for seamless integration into the software development lifecycle, limiting their practical utility for developers seeking to improve code quality and security. AI-assisted coding has been shown to be more beneficial for senior developers, as they possess the expertise to critically evaluate the generated code for correctness, completeness, and compliance. In contrast, junior developers may struggle to identify hallucinations, missing functionality, or incorrect logic in AI-generated code. To bridge this gap, This paper introduces a novel scoring mechanism called the SBC score, which is based on a reverse generation technique that leverages the natural language generation capabilities of LLMs. Unlike direct code analysis, our approach reconstructs system requirements from AI-generated code and compares them with the original specifications to quantify accuracy. The SBC score combines semantic similarity, BLEU, and completeness analysis, providing actionable insights to developers by highlighting missing features and hallucinations. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub

Related papers

• An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness of Large Language Models for Binary Code Understanding [50.17907898478795]
  This work proposes a benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in real-world reverse engineering scenarios. Our evaluations reveal that existing LLMs can understand binary code to a certain extent, thereby improving the efficiency of binary code analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T17:02:06Z)
• ClarifyCoder: Clarification-Aware Fine-Tuning for Programmatic Problem Solving [3.683434365857386]
  We present ClarifyCoder, a novel framework with synthetic data generation and instruction-tuning. We argue that the fundamental ability to recognize and query ambiguous requirements should be intrinsic to the models themselves. Our approach consists of two main components: (1) a data synthesis technique that augments existing programming datasets with scenarios requiring clarification to generate clarification-aware training data, and (2) a fine-tuning strategy that teaches models to prioritize seeking clarification over immediate code generation when faced with incomplete or ambiguous requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T00:34:39Z)
• On Explaining (Large) Language Models For Code Using Global Code-Based Explanations [45.126233498200534]
  Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) have significantly changed the landscape of software engineering (SE) We introduce code rationales (Code$Q$), a technique with rigorous mathematical underpinning, to identify subsets of tokens that can explain individual code predictions. Our evaluation demonstrates that Code$Q$ is a powerful interpretability method to explain how (less) meaningful input concepts (i.e., natural language particle at') highly impact output generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T01:00:45Z)
• SENAI: Towards Software Engineering Native Generative Artificial Intelligence [3.915435754274075]
  This paper argues for the integration of Software Engineering knowledge into Large Language Models. The aim is to propose a new direction where LLMs can move beyond mere functional accuracy to perform generative tasks. Software engineering native generative models will not only overcome the shortcomings present in current models but also pave the way for the next generation of generative models capable of handling real-world software engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T15:02:07Z)
• CodeIF: Benchmarking the Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models for Code Generation [24.090719826360342]
  We introduce CodeIF, the first benchmark designed to assess the abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to adhere to task-oriented instructions within code generation scenarios. We conduct extensive experiments with LLMs, analyzing their strengths and limitations in meeting the demands of these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T14:19:49Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• Is Functional Correctness Enough to Evaluate Code Language Models? Exploring Diversity of Generated Codes [17.95094238686012]
  Language models (LMs) have exhibited impressive abilities in generating codes from natural language requirements. We highlight the diversity of code generated by LMs as a critical criterion for evaluating their code generation capabilities. We propose a systematic approach to evaluate the diversity of generated code, utilizing various metrics for inter-code similarity as well as functional correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T07:40:22Z)
• 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)
• How Far Have We Gone in Binary Code Understanding Using Large Language Models [51.527805834378974]
  We propose a benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in binary code understanding. Our evaluations reveal that existing LLMs can understand binary code to a certain extent, thereby improving the efficiency of binary code analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T14:44:08Z)
• SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Code [0.5137309756089941]
  This paper describes SALLM, a framework to benchmark Large Language Models' abilities to generate secure code systematically. The framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, assessment techniques to evaluate the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T22:46:31Z)
• Benchmarking and Explaining Large Language Model-based Code Generation: A Causality-Centric Approach [12.214585409361126]
  Large language models (LLMs)- based code generation is a complex and powerful black-box model. We propose a novel causal graph-based representation of the prompt and the generated code. We illustrate the insights that our framework can provide by studying over 3 popular LLMs with over 12 prompt adjustment strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T14:56:26Z)
• When Do Program-of-Thoughts Work for Reasoning? [51.2699797837818]
  We propose complexity-impacted reasoning score (CIRS) to measure correlation between code and reasoning abilities. Specifically, we use the abstract syntax tree to encode the structural information and calculate logical complexity. Code will be integrated into the EasyInstruct framework at https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyInstruct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T17:22:39Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)
• Aligning Offline Metrics and Human Judgments of Value for Code Generation Models [25.726216146776054]
  We show that while correctness captures high-value generations, programmers still rate code that fails unit tests as valuable if it reduces the overall effort needed to complete a coding task. We propose a hybrid metric that combines functional correctness and syntactic similarity and show that it achieves a 14% stronger correlation with value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-29T05:03:28Z)

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.