Codehacks: A Dataset of Adversarial Tests for Competitive Programming Problems Obtained from Codeforces

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23466v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:50:03 GMT
• Title: Codehacks: A Dataset of Adversarial Tests for Competitive Programming Problems Obtained from Codeforces
• Authors: Max Hort, Leon Moonen,
• Abstract summary: We curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases.<n>The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems.<n>The source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems can be broken with their corresponding hacks.
• Score: 3.7752830020595796
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Software is used in critical applications in our day-to-day life and it is important to ensure its correctness. One popular approach to assess correctness is to evaluate software on tests. If a test fails, it indicates a fault in the software under test; if all tests pass correctly, one may assume that the software is correct. However, the reliability of these results depends on the test suite considered, and there is a risk of false negatives (i.e. software that passes all available tests but contains bugs because some cases are not tested). Therefore, it is important to consider error-inducing test cases when evaluating software. To support data-driven creation of such a test-suite, which is especially of interest for testing software synthesized from large language models, we curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases (i.e., "hacks"). This dataset is collected from the wild, in particular, from the Codeforces online judge platform. The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems, each with a natural language description, as well as the source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems that can be broken with their corresponding hacks. Keywords: competitive programming, language model, dataset

Related papers

• Leveraging Large Language Models in Code Question Answering: Baselines and Issues [0.1617522438111378]
  This paper presents a work devoted to using large language models for question answering over source code in Python. The proposed method for implementing a source code question answering system involves fine-tuning a large language model on a unified dataset of questions and answers for Python code. We report BLEU-4, BERTScore F1, BLEURT, and Exact Match metric values, along with the conclusions from the manual error analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T11:25:12Z)
• TestGenEval: A Real World Unit Test Generation and Test Completion Benchmark [24.14654309612826]
  TestGenEval comprises 68,647 tests from 1,210 code and test file pairs across 11 well-maintained Python repositories. It covers initial tests authoring, test suite completion, and code coverage improvements. We evaluate several popular models, with sizes ranging from 7B to 405B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T14:47:05Z)
• TESTEVAL: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Test Case Generation [15.343859279282848]
  We propose TESTEVAL, a novel benchmark for test case generation with large language models (LLMs)<n>We collect 210 Python programs from an online programming platform, LeetCode, and design three different tasks: overall coverage, targeted line/branch coverage, and targeted path coverage.<n>We find that generating test cases to cover specific program lines/branches/paths is still challenging for current LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T22:07:50Z)
• GPT-HateCheck: Can LLMs Write Better Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection? [50.53312866647302]
  HateCheck is a suite for testing fine-grained model functionalities on synthesized data. We propose GPT-HateCheck, a framework to generate more diverse and realistic functional tests from scratch. Crowd-sourced annotation demonstrates that the generated test cases are of high quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T10:02:01Z)
• Automatic Generation of Test Cases based on Bug Reports: a Feasibility Study with Large Language Models [4.318319522015101]
  Existing approaches produce test cases that either can be qualified as simple (e.g. unit tests) or that require precise specifications. Most testing procedures still rely on test cases written by humans to form test suites. We investigate the feasibility of performing this generation by leveraging large language models (LLMs) and using bug reports as inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T05:30:12Z)
• Test case quality: an empirical study on belief and evidence [8.475270520855332]
  We investigate eight hypotheses regarding what constitutes a good test case. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to find evidence that supports these beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T19:02:48Z)
• Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug [62.424077000154945]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on code generation. We propose Self- Debugging, which teaches a large language model to debug its predicted program via few-shot demonstrations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-11T10:43:43Z)
• FixEval: Execution-based Evaluation of Program Fixes for Programming Problems [23.987104440395576]
  We introduce FixEval, a benchmark comprising of buggy code submissions to competitive programming problems and their corresponding fixes. FixEval offers an extensive collection of unit tests to evaluate the correctness of model-generated program fixes. Our experiments show that match-based metrics do not reflect model-generated program fixes accurately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T20:18:43Z)
• Fault-Aware Neural Code Rankers [64.41888054066861]
  We propose fault-aware neural code rankers that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our fault-aware rankers can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:01:05Z)
• SUPERNOVA: Automating Test Selection and Defect Prevention in AAA Video Games Using Risk Based Testing and Machine Learning [62.997667081978825]
  Testing video games is an increasingly difficult task as traditional methods fail to scale with growing software systems. We present SUPERNOVA, a system responsible for test selection and defect prevention while also functioning as an automation hub. The direct impact of this has been observed to be a reduction in 55% or more testing hours for an undisclosed sports game title.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-10T00:47:46Z)
• AVATAR: A Parallel Corpus for Java-Python Program Translation [77.86173793901139]
  Program translation refers to migrating source code from one language to another. We present AVATAR, a collection of 9,515 programming problems and their solutions written in two popular languages, Java and Python.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-26T05:44:20Z)
• Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS [54.22600767666257]
  We introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 15% of the test cases of introductory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T17:58:42Z)

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.