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
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
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Attention to Detail: Evaluating Energy, Performance, and Accuracy Trade-offs Across vLLM Configurations
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.
-
Unseen Horizons: Unveiling the Real Capability of LLM Code Generation Beyond the Familiar
A code-obfuscation benchmark shows LLM code generation pass rates fall sharply when descriptions, code, and dependencies are rewritten to remove training-data familiarity.
-
ONEBench to Test Them All: Sample-Level Benchmarking Over Open-Ended Capabilities
ONEBench treats each benchmark sample as a voter in a Plackett-Luce aggregation, enabling open-ended, capability-specific, and incomplete-data model rankings.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.