REVIEW 2 cited by
Test-Driven Development for Code Generation
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 Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant capabilities in generating code snippets directly from problem statements. This increasingly automated process mirrors traditional human-led software development, where code is often written in response to a requirement. Historically, Test-Driven Development (TDD) has proven its merit, requiring developers to write tests before the functional code, ensuring alignment with the initial problem statements. Applying TDD principles to LLM-based code generation offers one distinct benefit: it enables developers to verify the correctness of generated code against predefined tests. This paper investigates if and how TDD can be incorporated into AI-assisted code-generation processes. We experimentally evaluate our hypothesis that providing LLMs like GPT-4 and Llama 3 with tests in addition to the problem statements enhances code generation outcomes. We experimented with established function-level code generation benchmarks such as MBPP and HumanEval. Our results consistently demonstrate that including test cases leads to higher success in solving programming challenges. We assert that TDD is a promising paradigm for helping ensure that the code generated by LLMs effectively captures the requirements.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
CLOVER: A Test Case Generation Benchmark with Coverage, Long-Context, and Verification
CLOVER is a new Python unit-test-generation benchmark with 845 problems, contexts up to 128k tokens, and coverage-based retrieval, where all 14 evaluated models score below 35% on the hardest task.
-
Evaluation of LLMs for mathematical problem solving
A three-model, three-dataset LLM math evaluation using a multi-dimensional reasoning rubric, undermined by contradictory accuracy tables.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.