MHPP: Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Beyond Basic Code Generation
2405.11430
0
0
š¬
Abstract
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. For instance, GPT-4 has achieved an 88.4% pass rate on HumanEval. However, this draws into question the adequacy of existing benchmarks in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation capabilities. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 140 unique human-curated problems. By focusing on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, MHPP gauges LLMs' abilities to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and apply coding knowledge effectively. Initial evaluations of 22 LLMs using MHPP showed many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. Moreover, MHPP highlighted various previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs, leading us to believe that it could pave the way for a better understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations. Dataset and code are available at https://github.com/SparksofAGI/MHPP.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved code generation capabilities, with GPT-4 achieving an 88.4% pass rate on the HumanEval benchmark.
- However, the adequacy of existing benchmarks, such as HumanEval and MBPP, in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation is questionable.
- The researchers introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, a collection of 140 human-curated problems that focus on the combination of natural language and code reasoning.
- Initial evaluations of 22 LLMs using MHPP revealed that many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP, highlighting previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) have made impressive strides in generating code, with the latest model, GPT-4, achieving a high success rate on the HumanEval benchmark. However, the researchers behind this study believe that existing benchmarks may not be sufficient to fully assess the code generation capabilities of these models.
The researchers created a new benchmark called Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP), which consists of 140 carefully curated problems that focus on both natural language understanding and complex coding tasks. By evaluating 22 different LLMs on the MHPP dataset, the researchers found that many models that performed well on HumanEval struggled to achieve similar success on the more challenging MHPP.
This suggests that the current benchmarks may not be capturing the full range of skills required for effective code generation, and that there are still significant limitations in the abilities of even the most advanced LLMs. The MHPP dataset could help researchers better understand the strengths and weaknesses of these models, potentially leading to improvements in their code generation capabilities.
Technical Explanation
The researchers analyzed two common benchmarks for assessing code generation capabilities of LLMs: HumanEval and MBPP. They found that these benchmarks may not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity.
To address these shortcomings, the researchers introduced the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 140 unique human-curated problems. MHPP focuses on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, requiring LLMs to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and effectively apply coding knowledge.
The researchers evaluated 22 LLMs using the MHPP dataset and found that many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. This suggests that MHPP is better suited to uncover various limitations within LLMs, potentially leading to a better understanding of their capabilities and limitations in code generation.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that the MHPP dataset has its own limitations, such as the potential for human bias in problem selection and curation. Additionally, the evaluation of LLMs on MHPP was limited to 22 models, and it would be beneficial to expand the study to include a broader range of models, including multilingual and specialized code-generation models.
Furthermore, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific weaknesses or limitations of the LLMs revealed by the MHPP dataset. A more thorough analysis of the model failures and the underlying reasons could provide valuable insights for the continued improvement of code generation capabilities.
Conclusion
The introduction of the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset represents a significant step forward in the assessment of LLMs' code generation abilities. By focusing on the combination of natural language understanding and complex coding tasks, MHPP has the potential to uncover previously undiscovered limitations in even the most advanced language models.
The researchers' findings suggest that current benchmarks may not be sufficient to fully evaluate the capabilities of LLMs, and that continued refinement and development of more challenging datasets are necessary to drive progress in this field. As LLMs become increasingly capable, the need for robust and comprehensive evaluation methods will only grow more critical.
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
The RealHumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models' Abilities to Support Programmers
Hussein Mozannar, Valerie Chen, Mohammed Alsobay, Subhro Das, Sebastian Zhao, Dennis Wei, Manish Nagireddy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Ameet Talwalkar, David Sontag
0
0
Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which measure the ability of LLMs to generate complete code that passes unit tests. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. In addition to static benchmarks, we investigate the utility of preference metrics that might be used as proxies to measure LLM helpfulness, such as code acceptance or copy rates. To do so, we introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=213) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with six LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals. We also open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.
4/4/2024
A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation
Juyong Jiang, Fan Wang, Jiasi Shen, Sungju Kim, Sunghun Kim
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered remarkable advancements across diverse code-related tasks, known as Code LLMs, particularly in code generation that generates source code with LLM from natural language descriptions. This burgeoning field has captured significant interest from both academic researchers and industry professionals due to its practical significance in software development, e.g., GitHub Copilot. Despite the active exploration of LLMs for a variety of code tasks, either from the perspective of natural language processing (NLP) or software engineering (SE) or both, there is a noticeable absence of a comprehensive and up-to-date literature review dedicated to LLM for code generation. In this survey, we aim to bridge this gap by providing a systematic literature review that serves as a valuable reference for researchers investigating the cutting-edge progress in LLMs for code generation. We introduce a taxonomy to categorize and discuss the recent developments in LLMs for code generation, covering aspects such as data curation, latest advances, performance evaluation, and real-world applications. In addition, we present a historical overview of the evolution of LLMs for code generation and offer an empirical comparison using the widely recognized HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks to highlight the progressive enhancements in LLM capabilities for code generation. We identify critical challenges and promising opportunities regarding the gap between academia and practical development. Furthermore, we have established a dedicated resource website (https://codellm.github.io) to continuously document and disseminate the most recent advances in the field.
6/4/2024
š¬
ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code
Xiangru Tang, Yuliang Liu, Zefan Cai, Yanjun Shao, Junjie Lu, Yichi Zhang, Zexuan Deng, Helan Hu, Kaikai An, Ruijun Huang, Shuzheng Si, Sheng Chen, Haozhe Zhao, Liang Chen, Yan Wang, Tianyu Liu, Zhiwei Jiang, Baobao Chang, Yin Fang, Yujia Qin, Wangchunshu Zhou, Yilun Zhao, Arman Cohan, Mark Gerstein
0
0
Despite Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 achieving impressive results in function-level code generation, they struggle with repository-scale code understanding (e.g., coming up with the right arguments for calling routines), requiring a deeper comprehension of complex file interactions. Also, recently, people have developed LLM agents that attempt to interact with repository code (e.g., compiling and evaluating its execution), prompting the need to evaluate their performance. These gaps have motivated our development of ML-Bench, a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. Addressing the need for LLMs to interpret long code contexts and translate instructions into precise, executable scripts, ML-Bench encompasses annotated 9,641 examples across 18 GitHub repositories, challenging LLMs to accommodate user-specified arguments and documentation intricacies effectively. To evaluate both LLMs and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4o leads with a Pass@5 rate surpassing 50%, there remains significant scope for improvement, highlighted by issues such as hallucinated outputs and difficulties with bash script generation. Notably, in the more demanding ML-Agent-Bench, GPT-4o achieves a 76.47% success rate, reflecting the efficacy of iterative action and feedback in complex task resolution. Our code, dataset, and models are available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/ML-bench.
6/19/2024
š¬
Evaluation of the Programming Skills of Large Language Models
Luc Bryan Heitz, Joun Chamas, Christopher Scherb
0
0
The advent of Large Language Models (LLM) has revolutionized the efficiency and speed with which tasks are completed, marking a significant leap in productivity through technological innovation. As these chatbots tackle increasingly complex tasks, the challenge of assessing the quality of their outputs has become paramount. This paper critically examines the output quality of two leading LLMs, OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini AI, by comparing the quality of programming code generated in both their free versions. Through the lens of a real-world example coupled with a systematic dataset, we investigate the code quality produced by these LLMs. Given their notable proficiency in code generation, this aspect of chatbot capability presents a particularly compelling area for analysis. Furthermore, the complexity of programming code often escalates to levels where its verification becomes a formidable task, underscoring the importance of our study. This research aims to shed light on the efficacy and reliability of LLMs in generating high-quality programming code, an endeavor that has significant implications for the field of software development and beyond.
5/24/2024