What can Large Language Models Capture about Code Functional Equivalence?

Read original: arXiv:2408.11081 - Published 8/22/2024 by Nickil Maveli, Antonio Vergari, Shay B. Cohen

💬

Overview

This paper introduces a new benchmark called SeqCoBench to assess how well large language models trained on code (Code-LLMs) can capture the semantics of code.
SeqCoBench contains over 20 code transformations that either preserve or alter the semantics of Python programs.
The researchers evaluate state-of-the-art (Code-)LLMs on SeqCoBench to see if they can discern semantically equivalent or different pairs of programs.
The results show a concerning lack of depth in these models' understanding of code semantics.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models trained on massive datasets of code, known as Code-LLMs, have made impressive strides in learning the structure and syntax of code. They can now generate or classify code fragments with great skill. However, it's unclear whether they truly understand the underlying meaning or semantics of the code.

To investigate this, the researchers created a new benchmark called SeqCoBench. This contains a variety of code transformations, some of which preserve the code's functionality and others that change it. By seeing how well Code-LLMs can identify semantically equivalent or different code pairs, the researchers can gauge the depth of the models' code comprehension.

They evaluated leading Code-LLMs and found that their performance was only slightly better than a simple text-matching approach. This suggests these models still struggle to truly understand the meanings behind the code they process, despite their impressive surface-level capabilities.

Technical Explanation

The researchers introduced SeqCoBench, a new benchmark for assessing how well Code-LLMs can capture code semantics. SeqCoBench contains over 20 code transformations that either preserve or alter the functionality of Python programs.

They evaluated state-of-the-art (Code-)LLMs, including GPT-2, CodeT5, and CodeBERT, on this benchmark using both zero-shot and parameter-efficient fine-tuning approaches. The goal was to see if these models could accurately distinguish semantically equivalent code pairs from those with different meanings.

The results showed that the performance gap between the LLMs and a simple text-based retrieval approach was minimal. Both struggled to deeply comprehend the underlying semantics of the code, suggesting current Code-LLMs lack the ability to truly understand the functionality of the code they process, despite their strong performance on surface-level code-related tasks like code summarization.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important concerns about the limitations of existing Code-LLMs in capturing code semantics, despite their impressive capabilities in other code-related tasks. The researchers acknowledge that their benchmark, while comprehensive, may not cover all aspects of semantic understanding.

Additionally, the study only examines a subset of state-of-the-art Code-LLMs, and it's possible that future models or alternative training approaches could yield better results. The researchers also note that their fine-tuning techniques may not have been optimal, and more sophisticated methods could potentially improve performance.

That said, the findings align with other research suggesting that current large language models, even those specialized for code, struggle to develop a deep, conceptual understanding of the programs they process. This is an important limitation that should be addressed as the field of code generation and analysis continues to advance.

Conclusion

This paper introduces a valuable new benchmark, SeqCoBench, for assessing the ability of Code-LLMs to comprehend code semantics. The results indicate that while these models have made impressive strides in learning code structure and syntax, they still lack the depth of understanding needed to truly grasp the underlying functionality of programs.

This work highlights the need for continued research to develop language models that can build more robust, conceptual representations of code. Improving semantic understanding is crucial for advancing the capabilities of AI systems in areas like program generation, bug detection, and code optimization. The insights from this paper can help guide future efforts to create Code-LLMs that can better capture the meanings behind the code they process.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

💬

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.

8/22/2024

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.

7/8/2024

Analyzing the Performance of Large Language Models on Code Summarization

Rajarshi Haldar, Julia Hockenmaier

Large language models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 perform very well on tasks that involve both natural language and source code, particularly code summarization and code generation. We show that for the task of code summarization, the performance of these models on individual examples often depends on the amount of (subword) token overlap between the code and the corresponding reference natural language descriptions in the dataset. This token overlap arises because the reference descriptions in standard datasets (corresponding to docstrings in large code bases) are often highly similar to the names of the functions they describe. We also show that this token overlap occurs largely in the function names of the code and compare the relative performance of these models after removing function names versus removing code structure. We also show that using multiple evaluation metrics like BLEU and BERTScore gives us very little additional insight since these metrics are highly correlated with each other.

4/15/2024

🏋️

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.

6/4/2024