REVIEW 2 cited by
The Program Testing Ability of Large Language Models for Code
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent development of large language models (LLMs) for code like CodeX and CodeT5+ demonstrates tremendous promise in achieving code intelligence. Their ability of synthesizing code that completes a program for performing a pre-defined task has been intensively tested and verified on benchmark datasets including HumanEval and MBPP. Yet, evaluation of these LLMs from more perspectives (than just program synthesis) is also anticipated, considering their broad scope of applications in software engineering. In this paper, we explore the ability of LLMs for testing programs/code. By performing thorough analyses of recent LLMs for code in program testing, we show a series of intriguing properties of these models and demonstrate how program testing ability of LLMs can be improved. Following recent work which utilizes generated test cases to enhance program synthesis, we further leverage our findings in improving the quality of the synthesized programs and show +11.77% and +4.22% higher code pass rates on HumanEval+ comparing with the GPT-3.5-turbo baseline and the recent state-of-the-art, respectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality
Prompt language affects LLM code generation, but English is not consistently best: Chinese prompts improve Python correctness on CoderEval, while quality and lexicon effects vary by model and programming language.
-
DeCon: Detecting Incorrect Assertions via Postconditions Generated by a Large Language Model
DeCon detects incorrect LLM-generated assertions by checking each assertion against LLM-generated postconditions that have been filtered against docstring I/O examples.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.