Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Top Leaderboard Ranking = Top Coding Proficiency, Always? EvoEval: Evolving Coding Benchmarks via LLM

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 2403.19114 v1 pith:76CK2P3O submitted 2024-03-28 cs.SE cs.CLcs.LGcs.PL

classification cs.SEcs.CLcs.LGcs.PL
keywords benchmarksllmsevoevalcodeperformancecodingcomprehensiveexisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

LLMs have become the go-to choice for code generation tasks, with an exponential increase in the training, development, and usage of LLMs specifically for code generation. To evaluate the ability of LLMs on code, both academic and industry practitioners rely on popular handcrafted benchmarks. However, prior benchmarks contain only a very limited set of problems, both in quantity and variety. Further, due to popularity and age, many benchmarks are prone to data leakage where example solutions can be readily found on the web and thus potentially in training data. Such limitations inevitably lead us to inquire: Is the leaderboard performance on existing benchmarks reliable and comprehensive enough to measure the program synthesis ability of LLMs? To address this, we introduce EvoEval -- a program synthesis benchmark suite created by evolving existing benchmarks into different targeted domains for a comprehensive evaluation of LLM coding abilities. Our study on 51 LLMs shows that compared to the high performance obtained on standard benchmarks like HumanEval, there is a significant drop in performance (on average 39.4%) when using EvoEval. Additionally, the decrease in performance can range from 19.6% to 47.7%, leading to drastic ranking changes amongst LLMs and showing potential overfitting of existing benchmarks. Furthermore, we showcase various insights, including the brittleness of instruction-following models when encountering rewording or subtle changes as well as the importance of learning problem composition and decomposition. EvoEval not only provides comprehensive benchmarks, but can be used to further evolve arbitrary problems to keep up with advances and the ever-changing landscape of LLMs for code. We have open-sourced our benchmarks, tools, and complete LLM generations at https://github.com/evo-eval/evoeval

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Attention to Detail: Evaluating Energy, Performance, and Accuracy Trade-offs Across vLLM Configurations

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    vLLM attention kernel and prefix caching drive model- and task-dependent energy and latency effects, with no universal best config, and can unexpectedly shift measured accuracy.

  2. Unseen Horizons: Unveiling the Real Capability of LLM Code Generation Beyond the Familiar

    cs.SE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A code-obfuscation benchmark shows LLM code generation pass rates fall sharply when descriptions, code, and dependencies are rewritten to remove training-data familiarity.

  3. ONEBench to Test Them All: Sample-Level Benchmarking Over Open-Ended Capabilities

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ONEBench treats each benchmark sample as a voter in a Plackett-Luce aggregation, enabling open-ended, capability-specific, and incomplete-data model rankings.

Pith tools