How Different AI Chatbots Behave? Benchmarking Large Language Models in Behavioral Economics Games

The deployment of large language models (LLMs) in diverse applications requires a thorough understanding of their decision-making strategies and behavioral patterns. As a supplement to a recent study on the behavioral Turing test, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of five leading LLM-based chatbot families as they navigate a series of behavioral economics games. By benchmarking these AI chatbots, we aim to uncover and document both common and distinct behavioral patterns across a range of scenarios. The findings provide valuable insights into the strategic preferences of each LLM, highlighting potential implications for their deployment in critical decision-making roles.

Customize Segment Anything Model for Multi-Modal Semantic Segmentation with Mixture of LoRA Experts

The recent Segment Anything Model (SAM) represents a significant breakthrough in scaling segmentation models, delivering strong performance across various downstream applications in the RGB modality. However, directly applying SAM to emerging visual modalities, such as depth and event data results in suboptimal performance in multi-modal segmentation tasks. In this paper, we make the first attempt to adapt SAM for multi-modal semantic segmentation by proposing a Mixture of Low-Rank Adaptation Experts (MoE-LoRA) tailored for different input visual modalities. By training only the MoE-LoRA layers while keeping SAM's weights frozen, SAM's strong generalization and segmentation capabilities can be preserved for downstream tasks. Specifically, to address cross-modal inconsistencies, we propose a novel MoE routing strategy that adaptively generates weighted features across modalities, enhancing multi-modal feature integration. Additionally, we incorporate multi-scale feature extraction and fusion by adapting SAM's segmentation head and introducing an auxiliary segmentation head to combine multi-scale features for improved segmentation performance effectively. Extensive experiments were conducted on three multi-modal benchmarks: DELIVER, MUSES, and MCubeS. The results consistently demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches across diverse scenarios. Notably, under the particularly challenging condition of missing modalities, our approach exhibits a substantial performance gain, achieving an improvement of 32.15% compared to existing methods.

CodePurify: Defend Backdoor Attacks on Neural Code Models via Entropy-based Purification

Neural code models have found widespread success in tasks pertaining to code intelligence, yet they are vulnerable to backdoor attacks, where an adversary can manipulate the victim model's behavior by inserting triggers into the source code. Recent studies indicate that advanced backdoor attacks can achieve nearly 100% attack success rates on many software engineering tasks. However, effective defense techniques against such attacks remain insufficiently explored. In this study, we propose CodePurify, a novel defense against backdoor attacks on code models through entropy-based purification. Entropy-based purification involves the process of precisely detecting and eliminating the possible triggers in the source code while preserving its semantic information. Within this process, CodePurify first develops a confidence-driven entropy-based measurement to determine whether a code snippet is poisoned and, if so, locates the triggers. Subsequently, it purifies the code by substituting the triggers with benign tokens using a masked language model. We extensively evaluate CodePurify against four advanced backdoor attacks across three representative tasks and two popular code models. The results show that CodePurify significantly outperforms four commonly used defense baselines, improving average defense performance by at least 40%, 40%, and 12% across the three tasks, respectively. These findings highlight the potential of CodePurify to serve as a robust defense against backdoor attacks on neural code models.

PatUntrack: Automated Generating Patch Examples for Issue Reports without Tracked Insecure Code

Security patches are essential for enhancing the stability and robustness of projects in the software community. While vulnerabilities are officially expected to be patched before being disclosed, patching vulnerabilities is complicated and remains a struggle for many organizations. To patch vulnerabilities, security practitioners typically track vulnerable issue reports (IRs), and analyze their relevant insecure code to generate potential patches. However, the relevant insecure code may not be explicitly specified and practitioners cannot track the insecure code in the repositories, thus limiting their ability to generate patches. In such cases, providing examples of insecure code and the corresponding patches would benefit the security developers to better locate and fix the insecure code. In this paper, we propose PatUntrack to automatically generating patch examples from IRs without tracked insecure code. It auto-prompts Large Language Models (LLMs) to make them applicable to analyze the vulnerabilities. It first generates the completed description of the Vulnerability-Triggering Path (VTP) from vulnerable IRs. Then, it corrects hallucinations in the VTP description with external golden knowledge. Finally, it generates Top-K pairs of Insecure Code and Patch Example based on the corrected VTP description. To evaluate the performance, we conducted experiments on 5,465 vulnerable IRs. The experimental results show that PatUntrack can obtain the highest performance and improve the traditional LLM baselines by +14.6% (Fix@10) on average in patch example generation. Furthermore, PatUntrack was applied to generate patch examples for 76 newly disclosed vulnerable IRs. 27 out of 37 replies from the authors of these IRs confirmed the usefulness of the patch examples generated by PatUntrack, indicating that they can benefit from these examples for patching the vulnerabilities.

Judging the Judges: A Systematic Investigation of Position Bias in Pairwise Comparative Assessments by LLMs

LLM-as-a-Judge offers a promising alternative to human judges across various tasks, yet inherent biases, particularly position bias - a systematic preference for answers based on their position in the prompt - compromise its effectiveness. Our study investigates this issue by developing a framework to systematically study and quantify position bias using metrics such as repetitional consistency, positional consistency, and positional fairness. We conduct experiments with 9 judge models across 22 tasks from the MTBench and DevBench benchmarks and nearly 40 answer-generating models, generating approximately 80,000 evaluation instances. This comprehensive assessment reveals significant variations in bias across judges and tasks. Although GPT-4 often excels in positional consistency and fairness, some more cost-effective models perform comparably or even better in specific tasks, highlighting essential trade-offs between consistency, fairness, and cost. Our results also demonstrate high consistency of judgment across repetitions, confirming that position bias is not due to random variations. This research significantly contributes to the field by introducing new concepts for understanding position bias and providing a multi-dimensional framework for evaluation. These insights guide the selection of optimal judge models, enhance benchmark design, and lay the foundation for future research into effective debiasing strategies, ultimately enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluators.

Exploring and Evaluating Hallucinations in LLM-Powered Code Generation

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly advanced many applications on software engineering tasks, particularly in code generation. Despite the promising performance, LLMs are prone to generate hallucinations, which means LLMs might produce outputs that deviate from users' intent, exhibit internal inconsistencies, or misalign with the factual knowledge, making the deployment of LLMs potentially risky in a wide range of applications. Existing work mainly focuses on investing the hallucination in the domain of natural language generation (NLG), leaving a gap in understanding the types and extent of hallucinations in the context of code generation. To bridge the gap, we conducted a thematic analysis of the LLM-generated code to summarize and categorize the hallucinations present in it. Our study established a comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in LLM-generated code, encompassing 5 primary categories of hallucinations depending on the conflicting objectives and varying degrees of deviation observed in code generation. Furthermore, we systematically analyzed the distribution of hallucinations, exploring variations among different LLMs and their correlation with code correctness. Based on the results, we proposed HalluCode, a benchmark for evaluating the performance of code LLMs in recognizing hallucinations. Hallucination recognition and mitigation experiments with HalluCode and HumanEval show existing LLMs face great challenges in recognizing hallucinations, particularly in identifying their types, and are hardly able to mitigate hallucinations. We believe our findings will shed light on future research about hallucination evaluation, detection, and mitigation, ultimately paving the way for building more effective and reliable code LLMs in the future.

DevBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Software Development

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their coding capabilities. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focused on simplified or isolated aspects of programming, such as single-file code generation or repository issue debugging, falling short of measuring the full spectrum of challenges raised by real-world programming activities. To this end, we propose DevBench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates LLMs across various stages of the software development lifecycle, including software design, environment setup, implementation, acceptance testing, and unit testing. DevBench features a wide range of programming languages and domains, high-quality data collection, and carefully designed and verified metrics for each task. Empirical studies show that current LLMs, including GPT-4-Turbo, fail to solve the challenges presented within DevBench. Analyses reveal that models struggle with understanding the complex structures in the repository, managing the compilation process, and grasping advanced programming concepts. Our findings offer actionable insights for the future development of LLMs toward real-world programming applications. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/open-compass/DevBench

FineMath: A Fine-Grained Mathematical Evaluation Benchmark for Chinese Large Language Models

To thoroughly assess the mathematical reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), we need to carefully curate evaluation datasets covering diverse mathematical concepts and mathematical problems at different difficulty levels. In pursuit of this objective, we propose FineMath in this paper, a fine-grained mathematical evaluation benchmark dataset for assessing Chinese LLMs. FineMath is created to cover the major key mathematical concepts taught in elementary school math, which are further divided into 17 categories of math word problems, enabling in-depth analysis of mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. All the 17 categories of math word problems are manually annotated with their difficulty levels according to the number of reasoning steps required to solve these problems. We conduct extensive experiments on a wide range of LLMs on FineMath and find that there is still considerable room for improvements in terms of mathematical reasoning capability of Chinese LLMs. We also carry out an in-depth analysis on the evaluation process and methods that have been overlooked previously. These two factors significantly influence the model results and our understanding of their mathematical reasoning capabilities. The dataset will be publicly available soon.

A Survey on Query-based API Recommendation

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are designed to help developers build software more effectively. Recommending the right APIs for specific tasks has gained increasing attention among researchers and developers in recent years. To comprehensively understand this research domain, we have surveyed to analyze API recommendation studies published in the last 10 years. Our study begins with an overview of the structure of API recommendation tools. Subsequently, we systematically analyze prior research and pose four key research questions. For RQ1, we examine the volume of published papers and the venues in which these papers appear within the API recommendation field. In RQ2, we categorize and summarize the prevalent data sources and collection methods employed in API recommendation research. In RQ3, we explore the types of data and common data representations utilized by API recommendation approaches. We also investigate the typical data extraction procedures and collection approaches employed by the existing approaches. RQ4 delves into the modeling techniques employed by API recommendation approaches, encompassing both statistical and deep learning models. Additionally, we compile an overview of the prevalent ranking strategies and evaluation metrics used for assessing API recommendation tools. Drawing from our survey findings, we identify current challenges in API recommendation research that warrant further exploration, along with potential avenues for future research.

Curriculum Learning for Relative Overgeneralization

In multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), many popular methods, such as VDN and QMIX, are susceptible to a critical multi-agent pathology known as relative overgeneralization (RO), which arises when the optimal joint action's utility falls below that of a sub-optimal joint action in cooperative tasks. RO can cause the agents to get stuck into local optima or fail to solve tasks that require significant coordination between agents within a given timestep. Recent value-based MARL algorithms such as QPLEX and WQMIX can overcome RO to some extent. However, our experimental results show that they can still fail to solve cooperative tasks that exhibit strong RO. In this work, we propose a novel approach called curriculum learning for relative overgeneralization (CURO) to better overcome RO. To solve a target task that exhibits strong RO, in CURO, we first fine-tune the reward function of the target task to generate source tasks that are tailored to the current ability of the learning agent and train the agent on these source tasks first. Then, to effectively transfer the knowledge acquired in one task to the next, we use a novel transfer learning method that combines value function transfer with buffer transfer, which enables more efficient exploration in the target task. We demonstrate that, when applied to QMIX, CURO overcomes severe RO problem and significantly improves performance, yielding state-of-the-art results in a variety of cooperative multi-agent tasks, including the challenging StarCraft II micromanagement benchmarks.