Debalina Ghosh Paul

Debalina Ghosh Paul, Hong Zhu, Ian Bayley

It is now common practice in software development for large language models (LLMs) to be used to generate program code. It is desirable to evaluate the robustness of LLMs for this usage. This paper is concerned in particular with how sensitive LLMs are to variations in descriptions of the coding tasks. However, existing techniques for evaluating this robustness are unsuitable for code generation because the input data space of natural language descriptions is discrete. To address this problem, we propose a robustness evaluation method called scenario domain analysis, which aims to find the expected minimal change in the natural language descriptions of coding tasks that would cause the LLMs to produce incorrect outputs. We have formally proved the theoretical properties of the method and also conducted extensive experiments to evaluate the robustness of four state-of-the-art art LLMs: Gemini-pro, Codex, Llamma2 and Falcon 7B, and have found that we are able to rank these with confidence from best to worst. Moreover, we have also studied how robustness varies in different scenarios, including the variations with the topic of the coding task and with the complexity of its sample solution, and found that robustness is lower for more complex tasks and also lower for more advanced topics, such as multi-threading and data structures.

Debalina Ghosh Paul, Hong Zhu, Ian Bayley

Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to generate program code. Much research has been reported on the functional correctness of generated code, but there is far less on code quality. Objectives: In this study, we propose a scenario-based method of evaluating the quality of LLM-generated code to identify the weakest scenarios in which the quality of LLM generated code should be improved. Methods: The method measures code smells, an important indicator of code quality, and compares them with a baseline formed from reference solutions of professionally written code. The test dataset is divided into various subsets according to the topics of the code and complexity of the coding tasks to represent different scenarios of using LLMs for code generation. We will also present an automated test system for this purpose and report experiments with the Java programs generated in response to prompts given to four state-of-the-art LLMs: Gemini Pro, ChatGPT, Codex, and Falcon. Results: We find that LLM-generated code has a higher incidence of code smells compared to reference solutions. Falcon performed the least badly, with a smell increase of 42.28%, followed by Gemini Pro (62.07%), ChatGPT (65.05%) and finally Codex (84.97%). The average smell increase across all LLMs was 63.34%, comprising 73.35% for implementation smells and 21.42% for design smells. We also found that the increase in code smells is greater for more complex coding tasks and for more advanced topics, such as those involving object-orientated concepts. Conclusion: In terms of code smells, LLM's performances on various coding task complexities and topics are highly correlated to the quality of human written code in the corresponding scenarios. However, the quality of LLM generated code is noticeably poorer than human written code.

Debalina Ghosh Paul, Hong Zhu, Ian Bayley

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), a large number of machine learning models have been developed to assist programming tasks including the generation of program code from natural language input. However, how to evaluate such LLMs for this task is still an open problem despite of the great amount of research efforts that have been made and reported to evaluate and compare them. This paper provides a critical review of the existing work on the testing and evaluation of these tools with a focus on two key aspects: the benchmarks and the metrics used in the evaluations. Based on the review, further research directions are discussed.

Debalina Ghosh Paul, Hong Zhu, Ian Bayley

In the scenario-based evaluation of machine learning models, a key problem is how to construct test datasets that represent various scenarios. The methodology proposed in this paper is to construct a benchmark and attach metadata to each test case. Then a test system can be constructed with test morphisms that filter the test cases based on metadata to form a dataset. The paper demonstrates this methodology with large language models for code generation. A benchmark called ScenEval is constructed from problems in textbooks, an online tutorial website and Stack Overflow. Filtering by scenario is demonstrated and the test sets are used to evaluate ChatGPT for Java code generation. Our experiments found that the performance of ChatGPT decreases with the complexity of the coding task. It is weakest for advanced topics like multi-threading, data structure algorithms and recursive methods. The Java code generated by ChatGPT tends to be much shorter than reference solution in terms of number of lines, while it is more likely to be more complex in both cyclomatic and cognitive complexity metrics, if the generated code is correct. However, the generated code is more likely to be less complex than the reference solution if the code is incorrect.