Scoring Verifiers: Evaluating Synthetic Verification for Code and Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13820v2
• Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 18:19:14 GMT
• Title: Scoring Verifiers: Evaluating Synthetic Verification for Code and Reasoning
• Authors: Aleksander Ficek, Somshubra Majumdar, Vahid Noroozi, Boris Ginsburg,
• Abstract summary: We propose an approach which can transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers.<n>We release four new benchmarks (HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+), and analyzed synthetic verification methods with standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs.<n>Our experiments show that reasoning can significantly improve test case generation and that scaling the number of test cases enhances the verification accuracy.
• Score: 59.25951947621526
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Synthetic verification techniques such as generating test cases and reward modelling are common ways to enhance the coding capabilities of large language models (LLM) beyond predefined tests. Additionally, code verification has recently found great success as a critical component in improving reasoning capability of LLMs via reinforcement learning. In this paper, we propose a an approach which can transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers. We also propose multiple metrics to measure different aspects of the synthetic verifiers with the proposed benchmarks. By employing the proposed approach, we release four new benchmarks (HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+), and analyzed synthetic verification methods with standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs. Our experiments show that reasoning can significantly improve test case generation and that scaling the number of test cases enhances the verification accuracy.

Related papers

• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios. Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models. We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• AutoLogi: Automated Generation of Logic Puzzles for Evaluating Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models [86.83875864328984]
  We propose an automated method for synthesizing open-ended logic puzzles, and use it to develop a bilingual benchmark, AutoLogi. Our approach features program-based verification and controllable difficulty levels, enabling more reliable evaluation that better distinguishes models' reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:02:31Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications. Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• Automated Refactoring of Non-Idiomatic Python Code: A Differentiated Replication with LLMs [54.309127753635366]
  We present the results of a replication study in which we investigate GPT-4 effectiveness in recommending and suggesting idiomatic actions.<n>Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs to achieve tasks where, in the past, implementing recommenders based on complex code analyses was required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T15:41:54Z)
• CodEv: An Automated Grading Framework Leveraging Large Language Models for Consistent and Constructive Feedback [0.0]
  This study presents an automated grading framework, CodEv, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide consistent and constructive feedback. Our framework also integrates LLM ensembles to improve the accuracy and consistency of scores, along with agreement tests to deliver reliable feedback and code review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T03:09:46Z)
• Human-Calibrated Automated Testing and Validation of Generative Language Models [3.2855317710497633]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for the evaluation and validation of generative language models (GLMs)<n>It focuses on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems deployed in high-stakes domains such as banking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T13:53:36Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• AssertionBench: A Benchmark to Evaluate Large-Language Models for Assertion Generation [6.3585378855805725]
  We present a novel benchmark to evaluate Large-Language Models' effectiveness for assertion generation. AssertioBench contains 100 curated Verilog hardware designs from OpenCores and formally verified assertions for each design generated from GoldMine and HARM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:47:28Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• 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)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Energy-bounded Learning for Robust Models of Code [16.592638312365164]
  In programming, learning code representations has a variety of applications, including code classification, code search, comment generation, bug prediction, and so on. We propose the use of an energy-bounded learning objective function to assign a higher score to in-distribution samples and a lower score to out-of-distribution samples in order to incorporate such out-of-distribution samples into the training process of source code models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-20T06:28:56Z)

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.