REVIEW 1 cited by
CodeBenchGen: Creating Scalable Execution-based Code Generation Benchmarks
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
CodeBenchGen: Creating Scalable Execution-based Code Generation Benchmarks
read the original abstract
To adequately test modern code generation systems, evaluation benchmarks must execute and test the code generated by the system. However, these execution and testing requirements have largely limited benchmarks to settings where code is easily executable or has human-written tests. To facilitate evaluation of code generation systems across diverse scenarios, we present CodeBenchGen, a framework to create scalable execution-based benchmarks from naturally occurring code sources. Specifically, we leverage a large language model (LLM) to sandbox arbitrary pieces of code into evaluation examples, including test cases for execution-based evaluation. We illustrate the usefulness of our framework by creating a dataset, Exec-CSN, which includes 1,931 examples involving 293 libraries converted from code in 367 GitHub repositories taken from the Code- SearchNet dataset. To demonstrate the solvability of examples in Exec-CSN, we present a human study demonstrating that 81.3% of the examples can be solved by humans and 61% are rated as "requires effort to solve". We conduct code generation experiments on open-source and proprietary models and analyze the performance of both humans and models. We provide code and data at: https://github.com/yiqingxyq/CodeBenchGen.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Go-UT-Bench: A Fine-Tuning Dataset for LLM-Based Unit Test Generation in Go
A new reproducible Go code-and-test dataset lets fine-tuned LLMs beat base models on 76–82% of unit-test generation judgments, though the judgments are made by another LLM and no tests are run.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.