REVIEW 4 cited by
CodeCriticBench: A Holistic Code Critique Benchmark for Large Language Models
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
The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Rethinking Technology Stack Selection with AI Coding Proficiency
AI coding proficiency, a new measure of how effectively LLMs use a given library, reveals large quality gaps between competing Python libraries, with winners varying by model.
-
CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization
A critic model trained with reinforcement learning judges semantic correctness of Lean 4 formalizations, and using it as a filter sharply improves autoformalization accuracy.
-
Code Monitor Red Teaming for Public-Test-Passing Code
Weak LLM verifiers miss most hidden bugs in public-test-passing code, and adversarial pressure makes that monitoring worse.
-
Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey
A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.