REVIEW 1 cited by
RES-Q: Evaluating Code-Editing Large Language Model Systems at the Repository Scale
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
abstract
The instruction-following ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has cultivated a class of LLM-based systems capable of approaching complex tasks such as making edits to large code repositories. Due to the high sensitivity and unpredictability of LLM behavior in response to changes in prompting, robust evaluation tools are needed to drive future iteration of these systems. We propose RES-Q, a natural language instruction-based benchmark for evaluating $\textbf{R}$epository $\textbf{E}$diting $\textbf{S}$ystems, which consists of 100 handcrafted repository editing tasks derived from real GitHub commits. Given an edit instruction and a code repository, RES-Q evaluates an LLM system's ability to interpret the instruction, navigate the repository to gather relevant information, and construct an appropriate edit that satisfies the specified criteria. We argue that evaluating LLMs in this way addresses issues with traditional benchmarks and provides a more holistic assessment of a model's abilities. We evaluate various state-of-the-art LLMs as language agents in a repository-editing system built on Qurrent OS, our language agent development software. Despite their 1% pass@1 performance difference on HumanEval, we find Claude Sonnet 3.5 outperforms GPT-4o by 12% pass@1 on RES-Q, indicating RES-Q's capacity to differentiate model capability as traditional benchmarks approach saturation. We further investigate token efficiency, performance relationships with existing benchmarks, and interesting disparities between closed and open-source LLMs. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/Qurrent-AI/RES-Q.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Code Benchmarks Should Prioritize Rigor, Reliability, and Reproducibility
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.