Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
124 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
8 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reasoning (2402.09664v5)

Published 15 Feb 2024 in cs.SE, cs.AI, cs.CL, and cs.PL

Abstract: LLMs have been widely used to automate programming tasks. Their capabilities have been evaluated by assessing the quality of generated code through tests or proofs. The extent to which they can reason about code is a critical question revealing important insights about their true capabilities. This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs through the following explicit and implicit code reasoning tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Specification Reasoning (SR) and Dynamic Semantics Reasoning (DSR). The first evaluates the abilities of LLMs to simulate the execution of given inputs to a code and predict the output (IER). The second assesses the abilities of LLMs to incorporate the simulation of test data in the specification into code generation (SR). Finally, CodeMind evaluates LLMs' abilities to understand overall code semantics only given a specific input/output (DSR). Our extensive evaluation of ten LLMs across four widely used benchmarks using CodeMind shows that LLMs, depending on their size and training strategy, can reason about some dynamic aspects of code. However, their performance drops for code with higher complexity, non-trivial logical and arithmetic operators, non-primitive types, and API calls. We show that these reasoning tasks evaluate LLMs differently, and a comprehensive evaluation of code reasoning requires them all. Finally, we show that the performance of LLMs in bug repair is not correlated with any of the code reasoning tasks, and except for advanced frontier models, other LLMs do not incorporate code reasoning when performing bug repair.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. Avatar: A parallel corpus for java-python program translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.11590, 2021.
  2. Multi-lingual evaluation of code generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14868, 2022.
  3. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024.
  4. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023.
  5. Multipl-e: A scalable and extensible approach to benchmarking neural code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08227, 2022.
  6. Codet: Code generation with generated tests. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10397, 2022.
  7. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021.
  8. CodeMind. Artifact website. https://github.com/CodeMindICML/CodeMindICML, 2024.
  9. Rect: A recursive transformer architecture for generalizable mathematical reasoning. In NeSy, pp.  165–175, 2021.
  10. Classeval: A manually-crafted benchmark for evaluating llms on class-level code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01861, 2023.
  11. What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30583–30598, 2022.
  12. Cyclomatic complexity density and software maintenance productivity. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 17(12):1284–1288, 1991.
  13. Cruxeval: A benchmark for code reasoning, understanding and execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03065, 2024.
  14. Do lvlms understand charts? analyzing and correcting factual errors in chart captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10160, 2023.
  15. Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398, 2023.
  16. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023.
  17. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023.
  18. Code simulation challenges for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09074, 2024.
  19. Starcoder: may the source be with you!, 2023.
  20. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01210, 2023.
  21. Wizardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583, 2023.
  22. The larger they are, the harder they fail: Language models do not recognize identifier swaps in python. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15507, 2023.
  23. Beyond accuracy: Evaluating self-consistency of code large language models with identitychain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14053, 2023.
  24. Program synthesis with large language models. In n/a, pp.  n/a, n/a, 2021. n/a.
  25. OpenAI. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt, 2023a.
  26. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774, 2023b.
  27. Understanding the effectiveness of large language models in code translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03109, 2023.
  28. Project codenet: A large-scale ai for code dataset for learning a diversity of coding tasks. 2021.
  29. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023.
  30. Natural language to code translation with execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11454, 2022.
  31. Spearman, C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. 1961.
  32. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023.
  33. Large language models still can’t plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10498, 2022.
  34. Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03731, 2023.
  35. Recode: Robustness evaluation of code generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10264, 2022.
  36. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022a.
  37. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022b.
  38. Magicoder: Source code is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02120, 2023.
  39. Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02477, 2023.
  40. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244, 2023.
  41. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10601, 2023.
  42. Transformer-based models are not yet perfect at learning to emulate structural recursion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12947, 2024.
  43. Algo: Synthesizing algorithmic programs with generated oracle verifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14591, 2023.
  44. Codegeex: A pre-trained model for code generation with multilingual benchmarking on humaneval-x. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.  5673–5684, 2023.
  45. Codegen-test: An automatic code generation model integrating program test information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07612, 2022.

Summary

  • The paper introduces CodeMind, a framework with three reasoning tasks (IER, DER, SR) to evaluate LLMs' code comprehension and predictive accuracy.
  • It shows that while LLMs excel with basic code constructs, they struggle with complex logic, intricate operations, and API integrations.
  • The study uncovers a gap between specification and execution reasoning, paving the way for targeted improvements in AI coding assistants.

Evaluating LLMs' Code Reasoning Abilities with CodeMind

Introduction to CodeMind

CodeMind presents a novel framework designed specifically for evaluating LLMs' (LLMs) abilities in code reasoning, a critical aspect in assessing their programming capabilities. Unlike approaches that rely solely on test-case passing, CodeMind introduces a structured method to dissect and understand the intricate process of code synthesis and execution reasoning among LLMs. This framework incorporates three distinct tasks: Independent Execution Reasoning (IER), Dependent Execution Reasoning (DER), and Specification Reasoning (SR), each engineered to test various facets of LLMs' code understanding and predictive accuracy.

Key Findings from the CodeMind Evaluation

The comprehensive assessment of nine leading LLMs, spanning both general and programming-specific models, yields informative insights into the state of AI-driven coding assistance. Among the key observations:

  • Understanding of Code Constructs: LLMs demonstrated a commendable grasp over basic code constructs and the ability to track input transformations to outputs, markedly for simpler code specimens and those they could accurately synthesize.
  • Limitations in Complex Code Reasoning: The LLMs' performance significantly diminished when confronted with complex code structures, intricate logical/arithmetic operations, and the utilization of API calls, revealing a noticeable gap in handling advanced programming concepts.
  • Discrepancy Between Specification and Execution Reasoning: An intriguing revelation from the paper is the disparity between LLMs' abilities to reason based on specifications versus their capacity to predict execution outcomes. This highlights a potential misalignment in the evaluation metrics when ranking LLMs purely on their code generation capabilities.

Technical Contributions and Framework Utility

The introduction of CodeMind is a substantial contribution to the field, offering an open-source platform for the collaborative enhancement of code reasoning benchmarks. The framework's design encompasses:

  • A Trio of Inductive Code Reasoning Tasks: Each task within CodeMind targets a specialized aspect of code reasoning, from predicting execution outcomes independently or relative to synthesized code, to adhering to given specifications.
  • Extensive Ground-Theory Evaluation: The deployment of CodeMind in evaluating a broad array of LLMs across diverse programming benchmarks transitions the theoretical model into a practical tool for deeper insights into LLM capabilities.
  • Insightful Analyses for Future Development: The paper meticulously catalogs the challenges LLMs face in code reasoning, laying down a roadmap for future enhancements in both LLM training and benchmark development.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings from the CodeMind evaluations serve both theoretical and practical advancements in the deployment of LLMs for coding tasks. The observed limitations underscore the necessity for targeted improvements in LLM training methodologies, especially for handling complex code structures and logical constructs. Moreover, the disparity between specification reasoning and execution reasoning suggests the need for a more holistic approach in LLM evaluation, considering both code generation and reasoning capabilities.

Looking ahead, expanding CodeMind to encompass additional code reasoning tasks appears to be a promising direction. These could potentially include challenges that test LLMs' understanding of variable scope, data flow across code segments, and optimization reasoning. Such extensions would not only refine the evaluation of LLMs but also pave the way for developing more sophisticated models capable of true programming mastery.

In essence, CodeMind stands as a pivotal step toward achieving a more nuanced and thorough understanding of LLMs' programming prowess, signaling a move towards more sophisticated and capable AI-driven coding assistants in the future.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown