Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2406.16801 v2 pith:VLMOUY52 submitted 2024-06-24 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords res-qlanguagellmsrepositorybenchmarkscodeevaluatinglarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Code Benchmarks Should Prioritize Rigor, Reliability, and Reproducibility

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools