REVIEW 3 cited by
Do Large Language Models Pay Similar Attention Like Human Programmers When Generating 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
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been widely used for code generation. Due to the complexity and opacity of LLMs, little is known about how these models generate code. We made the first attempt to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating whether LLMs attend to the same parts of a task description as human programmers during code generation. An analysis of six LLMs, including GPT-4, on two popular code generation benchmarks revealed a consistent misalignment between LLMs' and programmers' attention. We manually analyzed 211 incorrect code snippets and found five attention patterns that can be used to explain many code generation errors. Finally, a user study showed that model attention computed by a perturbation-based method is often favored by human programmers. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
AdaptiveLLM: A Framework for Selecting Optimal Cost-Efficient LLM for Code-Generation Based on CoT Length
AdaptiveLLM routes coding problems to cost-effective LLMs by clustering chain-of-thought lengths into three difficulty levels, improving pass@1 by 7.86% over ComplexityNet while cutting inference cost by 88.9%.
-
Deconstructing Obfuscation: A four-dimensional framework for evaluating Large Language Models assembly code deobfuscation capabilities
Commercial LLMs deobfuscate simple OLLVM-obfuscated assembly well for some techniques but universally fail when three obfuscations are combined.
-
Human-Centered Explainability in Interactive Information Systems: A Survey
A systematic review of 100 empirical user studies synthesizes explainability research into five conceptual dimensions, a design classification, and six measurement categories.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.