Wen-Ding Li

Pengcheng Yin, Wen-Ding Li, Kefan Xiao et al. · stanford

Computational notebooks, such as Jupyter notebooks, are interactive computing environments that are ubiquitous among data scientists to perform data wrangling and analytic tasks. To measure the performance of AI pair programmers that automatically synthesize programs for those tasks given natural language (NL) intents from users, we build ARCADE, a benchmark of 1082 code generation problems using the pandas data analysis framework in data science notebooks. ARCADE features multiple rounds of NL-to-code problems from the same notebook. It requires a model to understand rich multi-modal contexts, such as existing notebook cells and their execution states as well as previous turns of interaction. To establish a strong baseline on this challenging task, we develop PaChiNCo, a 62B code language model (LM) for Python computational notebooks, which significantly outperforms public code LMs. Finally, we explore few-shot prompting strategies to elicit better code with step-by-step decomposition and NL explanation, showing the potential to improve the diversity and explainability of model predictions.

Kensen Shi, Hanjun Dai, Wen-Ding Li et al.

Search is an important technique in program synthesis that allows for adaptive strategies such as focusing on particular search directions based on execution results. Several prior works have demonstrated that neural models are effective at guiding program synthesis searches. However, a common drawback of those approaches is the inability to handle iterative loops, higher-order functions, or lambda functions, thus limiting prior neural searches from synthesizing longer and more general programs. We address this gap by designing a search algorithm called LambdaBeam that can construct arbitrary lambda functions that compose operations within a given DSL. We create semantic vector representations of the execution behavior of the lambda functions and train a neural policy network to choose which lambdas to construct during search, and pass them as arguments to higher-order functions to perform looping computations. Our experiments show that LambdaBeam outperforms neural, symbolic, and LLM-based techniques in an integer list manipulation domain.

Darren Key, Wen-Ding Li, Kevin Ellis

We develop an approach to estimate the probability that a program sampled from a large language model is correct. Given a natural language description of a programming problem, our method samples both candidate programs as well as candidate predicates specifying how the program should behave. This allows learning a model that forms a well-calibrated probabilistic prediction of program correctness. Our system also infers which predicates are useful to explain the behavior of the generated code, and humans preferred these in a human study over raw language model outputs. Our method is simple, easy to implement, and maintains state of the art generation accuracy results.

Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu et al. · berkeley, microsoft-research

Large Language Models (LLMs) applied to code-related applications have emerged as a prominent field, attracting significant interest from both academia and industry. However, as new and improved LLMs are developed, existing evaluation benchmarks (e.g., HumanEval, MBPP) are no longer sufficient for assessing their capabilities. In this work, we propose LiveCodeBench, a comprehensive and contamination-free evaluation of LLMs for code, which continuously collects new problems over time from contests across three competition platforms, namely LeetCode, AtCoder, and CodeForces. Notably, our benchmark also focuses on a broader range of code related capabilities, such as self-repair, code execution, and test output prediction, beyond just code generation. Currently, LiveCodeBench hosts four hundred high-quality coding problems that were published between May 2023 and May 2024. We have evaluated 18 base LLMs and 34 instruction-tuned LLMs on LiveCodeBench. We present empirical findings on contamination, holistic performance comparisons, potential overfitting in existing benchmarks as well as individual model comparisons. We will release all prompts and model completions for further community analysis, along with a general toolkit for adding new scenarios and model

Kenneth Enevoldsen, Isaac Chung, Imene Kerboua et al. · cambridge, meta-ai

Text embeddings are typically evaluated on a limited set of tasks, which are constrained by language, domain, and task diversity. To address these limitations and provide a more comprehensive evaluation, we introduce the Massive Multilingual Text Embedding Benchmark (MMTEB) - a large-scale, community-driven expansion of MTEB, covering over 500 quality-controlled evaluation tasks across 250+ languages. MMTEB includes a diverse set of challenging, novel tasks such as instruction following, long-document retrieval, and code retrieval, representing the largest multilingual collection of evaluation tasks for embedding models to date. Using this collection, we develop several highly multilingual benchmarks, which we use to evaluate a representative set of models. We find that while large language models (LLMs) with billions of parameters can achieve state-of-the-art performance on certain language subsets and task categories, the best-performing publicly available model is multilingual-e5-large-instruct with only 560 million parameters. To facilitate accessibility and reduce computational cost, we introduce a novel downsampling method based on inter-task correlation, ensuring a diverse selection while preserving relative model rankings. Furthermore, we optimize tasks such as retrieval by sampling hard negatives, creating smaller but effective splits. These optimizations allow us to introduce benchmarks that drastically reduce computational demands. For instance, our newly introduced zero-shot English benchmark maintains a ranking order similar to the full-scale version but at a fraction of the computational cost.

Wen-Ding Li, Keya Hu, Carter Larsen et al.

When learning an input-output mapping from very few examples, is it better to first infer a latent function that explains the examples, or is it better to directly predict new test outputs, e.g. using a neural network? We study this question on ARC by training neural models for induction (inferring latent functions) and transduction (directly predicting the test output for a given test input). We train on synthetically generated variations of Python programs that solve ARC training tasks. We find inductive and transductive models solve different kinds of test problems, despite having the same training problems and sharing the same neural architecture: Inductive program synthesis excels at precise computations, and at composing multiple concepts, while transduction succeeds on fuzzier perceptual concepts. Ensembling them approaches human-level performance on ARC.

Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Naman Jain et al. · berkeley, microsoft-research

While language models are increasingly more proficient at code generation, they still frequently generate incorrect programs. Many of these programs are obviously wrong, but others are more subtle and pass weaker correctness checks such as being able to compile. In this work, we focus on these counterfeit samples: programs sampled from a language model that 1) have a high enough log-probability to be generated at a moderate temperature and 2) pass weak correctness checks. Overall, we discover that most models have a very shallow understanding of counterfeits through three clear failure modes. First, models mistakenly classify them as correct. Second, models are worse at reasoning about the execution behaviour of counterfeits and often predict their execution results as if they were correct. Third, when asking models to fix counterfeits, the likelihood of a model successfully repairing a counterfeit is often even lower than that of sampling a correct program from scratch. Counterfeits also have very unexpected properties: first, counterfeit programs for problems that are easier for a model to solve are not necessarily easier to detect and only slightly easier to execute and repair. Second, counterfeits from a given model are just as confusing to the model itself as they are to other models. Finally, both strong and weak models are able to generate counterfeit samples that equally challenge all models. In light of our findings, we recommend that care and caution be taken when relying on models to understand their own samples, especially when no external feedback is incorporated.

Terry Yue Zhuo, Minh Chien Vu, Jenny Chim et al.

Task automation has been greatly empowered by the recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) via Python code, where the tasks ranging from software engineering development to general-purpose reasoning. While current benchmarks have shown that LLMs can solve tasks using programs like human developers, the majority of their evaluations are limited to short and self-contained algorithmic tasks or standalone function calls. Solving challenging and practical tasks requires the capability of utilizing diverse function calls as tools to efficiently implement functionalities like data analysis and web development. In addition, using multiple tools to solve a task needs compositional reasoning by accurately understanding complex instructions. Fulfilling both of these characteristics can pose a great challenge for LLMs.To assess how well LLMs can solve challenging and practical tasks via programs, we introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges LLMs to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks. To evaluate LLMs rigorously, each task encompasses 5.6 test cases with an average branch coverage of 99%. In addition, we propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information. Our extensive evaluation of 60 LLMs shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%. The results underscore the need for further advancements in this area.

Wen-Ding Li, Kevin Ellis

Programming-by-Examples (PBE) aims to generate an algorithm from input-output examples. Such systems are practically and theoretically important: from an end-user perspective, they are deployed to millions of people, and from an AI perspective, PBE corresponds to a very general form of few-shot inductive inference. Given the success of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code-generation tasks, we investigate here the extent to which LLMs can be said to have "solved" PBE. We experiment on classic domains such as lists and strings, and an uncommon graphics programming domain not well represented in typical pretraining data. We find that pretrained models are not effective at PBE, but that they can be fine-tuned for much higher performance, provided the test problems are in-distribution. We analyze empirically what causes these models to succeed and fail, and take steps toward understanding how to achieve better out-of-distribution generalization. Collectively these results suggest that LLMs make strong progress toward solving the typical suite of PBE tasks, potentially increasing the flexibility and applicability of PBE systems, while also identifying ways in which LLMs still fall short.