An Empirical Study on Capability of Large Language Models in Understanding Code Semantics
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents an empirical study on the capability of large language models (LLMs) in understanding code semantics.
- The researchers evaluated the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs on a diverse set of code-related tasks, including code summarization, code retrieval, and code classification.
- The goal of the study was to provide insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs for understanding and reasoning about code.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to understand how well large language models (LLMs), which are powerful AI systems trained on massive amounts of text data, can comprehend the meaning and purpose of computer code. They tested several state-of-the-art LLMs by having them perform various tasks related to code, such as summarizing code snippets, finding similar code examples, and classifying the type of code.
The goal was to see how well these LLMs could truly understand the semantics and context of the code, rather than just recognizing patterns. This can provide insights into the strengths and limitations of using LLMs for tasks involving code, which is an important area of research as these models become more widely used in software development and other technical domains.
Technical Explanation
The researchers evaluated the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3, CODEX, and PaLM, on a diverse set of code-related tasks. These tasks included:
- Code Summarization: Given a code snippet, the models were asked to generate a natural language summary describing the code's functionality.
- Code Retrieval: Given a natural language description of a task, the models were asked to retrieve the most relevant code snippet from a large corpus.
- Code Classification: Given a code snippet, the models were asked to classify it into one of several predefined categories (e.g., sorting algorithm, data structure, etc.).
The researchers designed a comprehensive evaluation framework that included both quantitative and qualitative assessments. They measured the models' performance using various metrics, such as BLEU score for code summarization and F1-score for code classification. They also conducted detailed analyses to understand the models' strengths, limitations, and potential biases.
The results of the study showed that the LLMs exhibited varying levels of performance across the different tasks, with some models performing better than others. The researchers identified several key insights, including the models' ability to capture high-level code semantics and their struggles with low-level implementation details.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledged several limitations and caveats in their study. For example, the evaluation tasks were relatively narrow and might not fully capture the complex real-world challenges of understanding and reasoning about code. Additionally, the researchers used only a limited set of LLMs, and the performance of these models may change as they are further developed and refined.
Furthermore, the study did not delve into the potential biases or fairness issues that may arise when using LLMs for code-related tasks. It would be important to investigate whether these models exhibit any systematic biases or inconsistencies in their understanding and treatment of code from different domains or contexts.
Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in the domain of code semantics. However, further research is needed to fully understand the potential and pitfalls of using these models for various code-related applications, such as software engineering, programming assistance, and code generation.
Conclusion
This empirical study sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of large language models in understanding the semantics and context of computer code. The researchers' findings suggest that while LLMs can capture high-level code concepts, they still struggle with low-level implementation details and may exhibit biases or inconsistencies in their understanding of code.
These insights have important implications for the use of LLMs in software development, code generation, and other technical domains where a deep understanding of code is crucial. The study highlights the need for continued research and development to further improve the ability of LLMs to comprehend and reason about code, which could ultimately lead to more powerful and reliable AI-powered tools for software engineering and beyond.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
An Empirical Study on Capability of Large Language Models in Understanding Code Semantics
Thu-Trang Nguyen, Thanh Trong Vu, Hieu Dinh Vo, Son Nguyen
Large Language Models for Code (code LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various software engineering (SE) tasks, increasing the application of code LLMs in software development. Despite the success of code LLMs, there remain significant concerns about the actual capabilities and reliability of these models, whether these models really learn the semantics of code from the training data and leverage the learned knowledge to perform the SE tasks. In this paper, we introduce EMPICA, a comprehensive framework designed to systematically and empirically evaluate the capabilities of code LLMs in understanding code semantics. Specifically, EMPICA systematically introduces controlled modifications/transformations into the input code and examines the models' responses. Generally, code LLMs must be robust to semantically equivalent code inputs and be sensitive to non-equivalent ones for all SE tasks. Specifically, for every SE task, given an input code snippet c and its semantic equivalent variants, code LLMs must robustly produce consistent/equivalent outputs while they are expected to generate different outputs for c and its semantic non-equivalent variants. Our experimental results on three representative code understanding tasks, including code summarization, method name prediction, and output prediction, reveal that the robustness and sensitivity of the state-of-the-art code LLMs to code transformations vary significantly across tasks and transformation operators. In addition, the code LLMs exhibit better robustness to the semantic preserving transformations than their sensitivity to the semantic non-preserving transformations. These results highlight a need to enhance the model's capabilities of understanding code semantics, especially the sensitivity property.
Read more7/8/2024
💬
0
What can Large Language Models Capture about Code Functional Equivalence?
Nickil Maveli, Antonio Vergari, Shay B. Cohen
Code-LLMs, LLMs pre-trained on large code corpora, have shown great progress in learning rich representations of the structure and syntax of code, successfully using it to generate or classify code fragments. At the same time, understanding if they are able to do so because they capture code semantics, and how well, is still an open question. In this paper, we tackle this problem by introducing SeqCoBench, a benchmark for systematically assessing how Code-LLMs can capture code functional equivalence. SeqCoBench contains over 20 code transformations that either preserve or alter the semantics of Python programs. We conduct extensive evaluations in different settings, including zero-shot and parameter-efficient finetuning methods on state-of-the-art (Code-)LLMs to see if they can discern semantically equivalent or different pairs of programs in SeqCoBench. We find that the performance gap between these LLMs and classical match-based retrieval scores is minimal, with both approaches showing a concerning lack of depth in understanding code semantics.
Read more8/22/2024
🏋️
0
SemCoder: Training Code Language Models with Comprehensive Semantics
Yangruibo Ding, Jinjun Peng, Marcus J. Min, Gail Kaiser, Junfeng Yang, Baishakhi Ray
Code Large Language Models (Code LLMs) have excelled at tasks like code completion but often miss deeper semantics such as execution effects and dynamic states. This paper aims to bridge the gap between Code LLMs' reliance on static text data and the need for thorough semantic understanding for complex tasks like debugging and program repair. We introduce a novel strategy to train Code LLMs with comprehensive semantics, encompassing high-level functional descriptions, local execution effects of individual statements, and overall input/output behavior, thereby linking static code text with dynamic execution states. We begin by collecting PyX, a clean code corpus of fully executable samples with functional descriptions and execution tracing. We propose training Code LLMs to write code and represent and reason about execution behaviors using natural language, mimicking human verbal debugging. This approach led to the development of SemCoder, a Code LLM with only 6.7B parameters, which shows competitive performance with GPT-3.5-turbo on code generation and execution reasoning tasks. SemCoder achieves 81.1% on HumanEval (GPT-3.5-turbo: 76.8%) and 54.5% on CRUXEval-I (GPT-3.5-turbo: 50.3%). We also study the effectiveness of SemCoder's monologue-style execution reasoning compared to concrete scratchpad reasoning, showing that our approach integrates semantics from multiple dimensions more smoothly. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of applying learned semantics to improve Code LLMs' debugging and self-refining capabilities.
Read more6/4/2024
🤔
0
Understanding the Capabilities and Limitations of Large Language Models for Cultural Commonsense
Siqi Shen, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Soujanya Poria, Rada Mihalcea
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial commonsense understanding through numerous benchmark evaluations. However, their understanding of cultural commonsense remains largely unexamined. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive examination of the capabilities and limitations of several state-of-the-art LLMs in the context of cultural commonsense tasks. Using several general and cultural commonsense benchmarks, we find that (1) LLMs have a significant discrepancy in performance when tested on culture-specific commonsense knowledge for different cultures; (2) LLMs' general commonsense capability is affected by cultural context; and (3) The language used to query the LLMs can impact their performance on cultural-related tasks. Our study points to the inherent bias in the cultural understanding of LLMs and provides insights that can help develop culturally aware language models.
Read more5/9/2024