REVIEW 1 cited by
Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), a large number of machine learning models have been developed to assist programming tasks including the generation of program code from natural language input. However, how to evaluate such LLMs for this task is still an open problem despite of the great amount of research efforts that have been made and reported to evaluate and compare them. This paper provides a critical review of the existing work on the testing and evaluation of these tools with a focus on two key aspects: the benchmarks and the metrics used in the evaluations. Based on the review, further research directions are discussed.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Programming with AI: Evaluating ChatGPT, Gemini, AlphaCode, and GitHub Copilot for Programmers
By recompiling published benchmark scores, the paper names ChatGPT GPT-4-Turbo-0125 the most accurate coding assistant, with 87.2% pass@1 on HumanEval.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.