Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Execution-based Evaluation for Data Science Code Generation Models

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 2211.09374 v1 pith:N4QUZRMP submitted 2022-11-17 cs.SE cs.CL

classification cs.SEcs.CL
keywords codeevaluationgenerationdataexecutionexedsmodelmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code generation models can benefit data scientists' productivity by automatically generating code from context and text descriptions. An important measure of the modeling progress is whether a model can generate code that can correctly execute to solve the task. However, due to the lack of an evaluation dataset that directly supports execution-based model evaluation, existing work relies on code surface form similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, CodeBLEU) for model selection, which can be inaccurate. To remedy this, we introduce ExeDS, an evaluation dataset for execution evaluation for data science code generation tasks. ExeDS contains a set of 534 problems from Jupyter Notebooks, each consisting of code context, task description, reference program, and the desired execution output. With ExeDS, we evaluate the execution performance of five state-of-the-art code generation models that have achieved high surface-form evaluation scores. Our experiments show that models with high surface-form scores do not necessarily perform well on execution metrics, and execution-based metrics can better capture model code generation errors. Source code and data can be found at https://github.com/Jun-jie-Huang/ExeDS

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. Full citation record

  1. Code Benchmarks Should Prioritize Rigor, Reliability, and Reproducibility

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 55-criteria guideline and audit of 274 code benchmarks finds that most benchmarks skip data quality checks, prompting calls for more rigorous, reproducible benchmark construction.

Pith tools