PyBench: Evaluating LLM Agent on various real-world coding tasks
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The provided paper, "PyBench: Evaluating LLM Agent on various real-world coding tasks", evaluates the performance of large language models (LLMs) on a variety of coding-related tasks.
- The paper introduces PyBench, a benchmark that assesses the ability of LLM agents to solve real-world coding problems.
- The benchmark covers a range of tasks, including code generation, code translation, and code refactoring, among others.
- The paper reports the results of experiments conducted using various LLM agents and provides insights into their strengths and weaknesses.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores how well large language models (LLMs) ā the advanced AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text ā perform when tasked with coding-related activities. The researchers developed a benchmark called PyBench that tests LLMs on a variety of real-world coding challenges, such as generating code from descriptions, translating code between programming languages, and refactoring existing code to improve its quality.
By evaluating the performance of different LLM agents on these tasks, the paper aims to provide insights into the current capabilities and limitations of these models when it comes to coding and software development. This information can be useful for researchers, developers, and companies who are interested in leveraging LLMs for programming-related applications.
The key finding of the paper is that while LLMs show promising results on some coding tasks, they still struggle with others, particularly those that require more complex reasoning or a deeper understanding of programming concepts. The paper discusses the specific strengths and weaknesses of the tested LLM agents, providing a nuanced view of their current abilities in the realm of coding and software engineering.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces PyBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the performance of large language model (LLM) agents on a variety of real-world coding tasks. The benchmark covers a wide range of activities, including code generation, code translation, code refactoring, code explanation, and code summarization.
The authors conduct experiments using several LLM agents, including GPT-3, InstructGPT, and CodeGPT, to assess their performance on the PyBench tasks. The experiments involve providing the LLM agents with prompts or descriptions of the coding problems, and then evaluating the quality and correctness of their responses.
The paper reports the results of these experiments, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the tested LLM agents. For example, the results show that the models perform well on tasks like code generation and translation, but struggle with more complex activities like code refactoring and optimization.
The authors also discuss the potential implications of their findings for the use of LLMs in software development and programming-related applications. They note that while LLMs show promise in this domain, there are still significant challenges to overcome before they can be reliably used as a replacement for human coders.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-designed evaluation of LLM agents' performance on a range of coding-related tasks. The PyBench benchmark appears to be a comprehensive and well-thought-out tool for assessing these models' capabilities.
One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small number of LLM agents tested. While the authors include several prominent models, there are many other LLMs that could be evaluated to get a more complete picture of the state of the art in this area.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the reasons behind the observed strengths and weaknesses of the tested models. Further analysis of the specific architectural features, training data, or other factors that contribute to the models' performance could provide more valuable insights for the research community.
Finally, the paper could have benefited from a more critical discussion of the potential biases or limitations of the benchmark itself. While the authors acknowledge some of these issues, a more in-depth analysis of the benchmark's scope and potential shortcomings could help readers interpret the results more cautiously.
Conclusion
The PyBench benchmark introduced in this paper represents an important step forward in evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) when it comes to coding and software development tasks. The study's findings suggest that while LLMs show promise in certain areas, they still have significant limitations that need to be addressed before they can be considered viable replacements for human coders.
The insights provided by this research could have important implications for the development and deployment of LLM-based tools in programming-related applications. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these models, researchers and developers can work to improve them and explore new ways of integrating them into the software engineering workflow.
Overall, the PyBench benchmark and the findings reported in this paper represent a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to harness the power of AI for coding and software development tasks.
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
PyBench: Evaluating LLM Agent on various real-world coding tasks
Yaolun Zhang, Yinxu Pan, Yudong Wang, Jie Cai, Zhi Zheng, Guoyang Zeng, Zhiyuan Liu
The LLM Agent, equipped with a code interpreter, is capable of automatically solving real-world coding tasks, such as data analysis and image editing. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on either simplistic tasks, such as completing a few lines of code, or on extremely complex and specific tasks at the repository level, neither of which are representative of various daily coding tasks. To address this gap, we introduce textbf{PyBench}, a benchmark encompassing five main categories of real-world tasks, covering more than 10 types of files. Given a high-level user query and related files, the LLM Agent needs to reason and execute Python code via a code interpreter for a few turns before making a formal response to fulfill the user's requirements. Successfully addressing tasks in PyBench demands a robust understanding of various Python packages, superior reasoning capabilities, and the ability to incorporate feedback from executed code. Our evaluations indicate that current open-source LLMs are struggling with these tasks. Hence, we conduct analysis and experiments on four kinds of datasets proving that comprehensive abilities are needed for PyBench. Our fine-tuned 8B size model: textbf{PyLlama3} achieves an exciting performance on PyBench which surpasses many 33B and 70B size models. Our Benchmark, Training Dataset, and Model are available at: href{https://github.com/Mercury7353/PyBench}{https://github.com/Mercury7353/PyBench}
Read more7/25/2024
0
CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin
Songyang Zhang, Chuyu Zhang, Yingfan Hu, Haowen Shen, Kuikun Liu, Zerun Ma, Fengzhe Zhou, Wenwei Zhang, Xuming He, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen
While LLM-Based agents, which use external tools to solve complex problems, have made significant progress, benchmarking their ability is challenging, thereby hindering a clear understanding of their limitations. In this paper, we propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. Our evaluation framework includes an evaluation dataset and two evaluation modes. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. The two evaluation modes assess LLMs' ability with and without human assistance. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
Read more7/26/2024
š¬
0
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
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.
Read more8/22/2024
0
New!Towards a Realistic Long-Term Benchmark for Open-Web Research Agents
Peter Muhlbacher, Nikos I. Bosse, Lawrence Phillips
We present initial results of a forthcoming benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on white-collar tasks of economic value. We evaluate eight realistic and ``messy'' tasks that are routine in finance and consulting, drawn from real-world cases from our customers. We lay the groundwork for an LLM agent evaluation suite where good performance directly corresponds to a large economic and societal impact. This fills a gap in existing benchmarks with tasks like ``order a pizza to the following address'' that do not constitute real-human work of economic value. Our evaluations assign credit to agents for partially solving tasks. By doing that, this initial evaluation, and the forthcoming benchmark, allow us to more accurately extrapolate performance of LLM-based agents on economically valuable tasks. We built and tested several architectures with GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 (405b), and GPT-4o-mini, ensuring that failure to solve a task was due to failures of reasoning and planning, rather than due to common failures like e.g. the inability to parse a website. On average, LLM agents powered by Claude-3.5 Sonnet substantially outperformed agents using GPT-4o, with agents based on Llama 3.1 (405b) and GPT-4o-mini lagging noticeably behind. Across LLMs, a ReAct architecture with the ability to delegate subtasks to subagents performed best. In addition to quantitative evaluations, we qualitatively assessed the performance of the LLM agents by inspecting their traces and reflecting on their observations.
Read more9/24/2024