Simin Chen

Simin Chen, Pranav Pusarla, Baishakhi Ray

The rapid evolution of code largelanguage models underscores the need for effective and transparent benchmarking of their reasoning capabilities. However, the current benchmarking approach heavily depends on publicly available, human-created datasets. The widespread use of these fixed benchmark datasets makes the benchmarking process to be static and thus particularly susceptible to data contamination, an unavoidable consequence of the extensive data collection processes used to train Code LLMs. Existing approaches that address data contamination often suffer from human effort limitations and imbalanced problem complexity. To tackle these challenges, we propose \tool, a novel benchmarking suite for evaluating Code LLMs under potential data contamination. Given a seed programming problem, \tool employs multiple agents to extract and modify the context without altering the core logic, generating semantically equivalent variations. We introduce a dynamic data generation methods and conduct empirical studies on two seed datasets across 21 Code LLMs. Results show that \tool effectively benchmarks reasoning capabilities under contamination risks while generating diverse problem sets to ensure consistent and reliable evaluations.

Simin Chen, Xiaoning Feng, Xiaohong Han et al.

In recent times, a plethora of Large Code Generation Models (LCGMs) have been proposed, showcasing significant potential in assisting developers with complex programming tasks. Benchmarking LCGMs necessitates the creation of a set of diverse programming problems, and each problem comprises the prompt (including the task description), canonical solution, and test inputs. The existing methods for constructing such a problem set can be categorized into two main types: manual methods and perturbation-based methods. However, manual methods demand high effort and lack scalability, while also risking data integrity due to LCGMs' potentially contaminated data collection, and perturbation-based approaches mainly generate semantically homogeneous problems with the same canonical solutions and introduce typos that can be easily auto-corrected by IDE, making them ineffective and unrealistic. In this work, we propose the idea of programming problem merging (PPM) and provide two implementation of this idea, we utilize our tool on two widely-used datasets and compare it against nine baseline methods using eight code generation models. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our tool in generating more challenging, diverse, and natural programming problems, comparing to the baselines.

Yufei Li, Simin Chen, Yanghong Guo et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely employed in programming language analysis to enhance human productivity. Yet, their reliability can be compromised by various code distribution shifts, leading to inconsistent outputs. While probabilistic methods are known to mitigate such impact through uncertainty calibration and estimation, their efficacy in the language domain remains underexplored compared to their application in image-based tasks. In this work, we first introduce a large-scale benchmark dataset, incorporating three realistic patterns of code distribution shifts at varying intensities. Then we thoroughly investigate state-of-the-art probabilistic methods applied to CodeLlama using these shifted code snippets. We observe that these methods generally improve the uncertainty awareness of CodeLlama, with increased calibration quality and higher uncertainty estimation~(UE) precision. However, our study further reveals varied performance dynamics across different criteria (e.g., calibration error vs misclassification detection) and trade-off between efficacy and efficiency, highlighting necessary methodological selection tailored to specific contexts.