Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review

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

arxiv 2406.12655 v1 pith:XNK6EIAQ submitted 2024-06-18 cs.AI cs.SE

classification cs.AIcs.SE
keywords reviewbeenbenchmarkscodecriticalevaluateevaluationsgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), a large number of machine learning models have been developed to assist programming tasks including the generation of program code from natural language input. However, how to evaluate such LLMs for this task is still an open problem despite of the great amount of research efforts that have been made and reported to evaluate and compare them. This paper provides a critical review of the existing work on the testing and evaluation of these tools with a focus on two key aspects: the benchmarks and the metrics used in the evaluations. Based on the review, further research directions are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Programming with AI: Evaluating ChatGPT, Gemini, AlphaCode, and GitHub Copilot for Programmers

    cs.SE 2024-11 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    By recompiling published benchmark scores, the paper names ChatGPT GPT-4-Turbo-0125 the most accurate coding assistant, with 87.2% pass@1 on HumanEval.

Pith tools