REVIEW 6 cited by
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
NoFunEval: Funny How Code LMs Falter on Requirements Beyond Functional Correctness
read the original abstract
Existing evaluation benchmarks of language models of code (code LMs) focus almost exclusively on whether the LMs can generate functionally-correct code. In real-world software engineering, developers think beyond functional correctness. They have requirements on "how" a functionality should be implemented to meet overall system design objectives like efficiency, security, and maintainability. They would also trust the code LMs more if the LMs demonstrate robust understanding of such requirements. We propose a new benchmark NoFunEval to evaluate code LMs on non-functional requirements and simple classification instances for both functional and non-functional requirements. We propose a prompting method, Coding Concepts (CoCo), as a way for a developer to communicate the domain knowledge to the LMs. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 27 code LMs. Our finding is that LMs generally falter when tested on our benchmark, hinting at fundamental blindspots in their training setups. Surprisingly, even the classification accuracy on functional-correctness instances derived from the popular HumanEval benchmark is low, calling in question the depth of their comprehension and the source of their success in generating functionally-correct code in the first place. We release our benchmark and evaluation scripts publicly at https://aka.ms/NoFunEval.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating?
Frontier LLMs pass unit tests over 76% of the time on debugging tasks but achieve edit precision below 45%, indicating regeneration rather than precise debugging.
-
Precise Debugging Benchmark: Is Your Model Debugging or Regenerating?
The Precise Debugging Benchmark reveals that frontier LLMs achieve over 76% unit-test pass rates but below 45% edit precision when debugging, often regenerating rather than making minimal fixes.
-
Rethinking Code Performance Benchmarks for LLMs
Re-evaluating four LLM code-efficiency benchmarks with 30-run statistical testing shows 93.89% of 'performant' implementations are indistinguishable from baselines; a multi-agent test-generation framework reveals hidd...
-
JETO-Bench: A Reproducible Benchmark for Execution Time Improvement Patches in Java
JETO-Mine is a reusable three-phase pipeline that mines 1.8 million Java commits to produce JETO-Bench containing 91 verified executable ETIPs, on which OpenHands succeeds at 14.3%.
-
LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code
LiveCodeBench collects 400 recent contest problems to create a contamination-free benchmark evaluating LLMs on code generation and related capabilities like self-repair and execution.
-
Reward-Free Code Alignment from Pretrained or Fine-Tuned LLM: Unpacking the Trade-offs for Code Generation
Empirical study on five LLMs finds pretrained-to-aligned paths yield bigger gains over baseline than finetuned-to-aligned paths, though absolute accuracy remains lower for pretrained starts.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.