Brent Paulovicks

Pooja Aggarwal, Oishik Chatterjee, Ting Dai et al.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has greatly facilitated code generation, but ensuring the functional correctness of generated code remains a challenge. Traditional validation methods are often time-consuming, error-prone, and impractical for large volumes of code. We introduce CodeSift, a novel framework that leverages LLMs as the first-line filter of code validation without the need for execution, reference code, or human feedback, thereby reducing the validation effort. We assess the effectiveness of our method across three diverse datasets encompassing two programming languages. Our results indicate that CodeSift outperforms state-of-the-art code evaluation methods. Internal testing conducted with subject matter experts reveals that the output generated by CodeSift is in line with human preference, reinforcing its effectiveness as a dependable automated code validation tool.

Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Brent Paulovicks, Vadim Sheinin

Given recent advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs), code generation tasks attract immense attention for wide application in different domains. In an effort to evaluate and select a best model to automatically remediate system incidents discovered by Application Performance Monitoring (APM) platforms, it is crucial to verify if the generated code is syntactically and semantically correct, and whether it can be executed correctly as intended. However, current methods for evaluating the quality of code generated by LLMs heavily rely on surface form similarity metrics (e.g. BLEU, ROUGE, and exact/partial match) which have numerous limitations. In contrast, execution based evaluation focuses more on code functionality and does not constrain the code generation to any fixed solution. Nevertheless, designing and implementing such execution-based evaluation platform is not a trivial task. There are several works creating execution-based evaluation platforms for popular programming languages such as SQL, Python, Java, but limited or no attempts for scripting languages such as Bash and PowerShell. In this paper, we present the first execution-based evaluation platform in which we created three test suites (total 125 handcrafted test cases) to evaluate Bash (both single-line commands and multiple-line scripts) and PowerShell codes generated by LLMs. We benchmark seven closed and open-source LLMs using our platform with different techniques (zero-shot vs. few-shot learning).

Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Brent Paulovicks, Vadim Sheinin

In an effort to automatically evaluate and select the best model and improve code quality for automatic incident remediation in IT Automation, it is crucial to verify if the generated code for remediation action is syntactically and semantically correct and whether it can be executed correctly as intended. There are three approaches: 1) conventional methods use surface form similarity metrics (token match, exact match, etc.) which have numerous limitations, 2) execution-based evaluation focuses more on code functionality based on pass/fail judgments for given test-cases, and 3) LLM-as-a-Judge employs LLMs for automated evaluation to judge if it is a correct answer for a given problem based on pre-defined metrics. In this work, we focused on enhancing LLM-as-a-Judge using bidirectional functionality matching and logic representation for reference-less automatic validation and refinement for Bash code generation to select the best model for automatic incident remediation in IT Automation. We used execution-based evaluation as ground-truth to evaluate our LLM-as-a-Judge metrics. Results show high accuracy and agreement with execution-based evaluation (and up to 8% over baseline). Finally, we built Reflection code agents to utilize judgments and feedback from our evaluation metrics which achieved significant improvement (up to 24% increase in accuracy) for automatic code refinement.