Begüm Koç

Ali Al-Kaswan, Sebastian Deatc, Begüm Koç et al.

Nowadays, developers increasingly rely on solutions powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to assist them with their coding tasks. This makes it crucial to align these tools with human values to prevent malicious misuse. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive framework for assessing the potential harmfulness of LLMs within the software engineering domain. We begin by developing a taxonomy of potentially harmful software engineering scenarios and subsequently, create a dataset of prompts based on this taxonomy. To systematically assess the responses, we design and validate an automatic evaluator that classifies the outputs of a variety of LLMs both open-source and closed-source models, as well as general-purpose and code-specific LLMs. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of models size, architecture family, and alignment strategies on their tendency to generate harmful content. The results show significant disparities in the alignment of various LLMs for harmlessness. We find that some models and model families, such as Openhermes, are more harmful than others and that code-specific models do not perform better than their general-purpose counterparts. Notably, some fine-tuned models perform significantly worse than their base-models due to their design choices. On the other side, we find that larger models tend to be more helpful and are less likely to respond with harmful information. These results highlight the importance of targeted alignment strategies tailored to the unique challenges of software engineering tasks and provide a foundation for future work in this critical area.

Roham Koohestani, Philippe de Bekker, Begüm Koç et al.

Benchmarks are essential for unified evaluation and reproducibility. The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering (AI4SE) has produced numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug repair. However, this proliferation has led to major challenges: (1) fragmented knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting contextually relevant benchmarks, (3) lack of standardization in benchmark creation, and (4) flaws that limit utility. Addressing these requires a dual approach: systematically mapping existing benchmarks for informed selection and defining unified guidelines for robust, adaptable benchmark development. We conduct a review of 247 studies, identifying 273 AI4SE benchmarks since 2014. We categorize them, analyze limitations, and expose gaps in current practices. Building on these insights, we introduce BenchScout, an extensible semantic search tool for locating suitable benchmarks. BenchScout employs automated clustering with contextual embeddings of benchmark-related studies, followed by dimensionality reduction. In a user study with 22 participants, BenchScout achieved usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To improve benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified framework for enhancing benchmark quality. Applying BenchFrame to HumanEval yielded HumanEvalNext, featuring corrected errors, improved language conversion, higher test coverage, and greater difficulty. Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art code models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext revealed average pass-at-1 drops of 31.22% and 19.94%, respectively, underscoring the need for continuous benchmark refinement. We further examine BenchFrame's scalability through an agentic pipeline and confirm its generalizability on the MBPP dataset. All review data, user study materials, and enhanced benchmarks are publicly released.