Benchmarks and Metrics for Evaluations of Code Generation: A Critical Review

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.

ScenEval: A Benchmark for Scenario-Based Evaluation of Code Generation

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.