PreprintCited by 8Software Engineering ResearchTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code

Open access

Abstract

Despite Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 achieving impressive results in function-level code generation, they struggle with repository-scale code understanding (e.g., coming up with the right arguments for calling routines), requiring a deeper comprehension of complex file interactions. Also, recently, people have developed LLM agents that attempt to interact with repository code (e.g., compiling and evaluating its execution), prompting the need to evaluate their performance. These gaps have motivated our development of ML-Bench, a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. Addressing the need for LLMs to interpret long code contexts and translate instructions into precise, executable scripts, ML-Bench encompasses annotated 9,641 examples across 18 GitHub repositories, challenging LLMs to accommodate user-specified arguments and documentation intricacies effectively. To evaluate both LLMs and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4o leads with a Pass@5 rate surpassing 50%, there remains significant scope for improvement, highlighted by issues such as hallucinated outputs and difficulties with bash script generation. Notably, in the more demanding ML-Agent-Bench, GPT-4o achieves a 76.47% success rate, reflecting the efficacy of iterative action and feedback in complex task resolution. Our code, dataset, and models are available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/ML-bench.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.09835

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing machine learning software engineering benchmarks are primarily focused on evaluating algorithmic design or straightforward implementations, which are significantly less complex than methods typically described in academic research papers.

    “there are several machine learning software engineering benchmarks primarily focused on evaluating algorithmic design or straightforward implementations, which are significantly less complex than the methods typically described in academic research papers.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tang, X., Liu, Y., Cai, Z., Shao, Y., Lu, J., Zhang, Y., Deng, Z., Hu, H., An, K., Huang, R., Si, S., Chen, S., Zhao, H., Chen, L., Wang, Y., Liu, T., Jiang, Z., Chang, B., Fang, Y., Qin, Y., Zhou, W., Zhao, Y., Cohan, A., & Gerstein, M.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388788714
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, LLM agents, software repositories, benchmark, GPT-4o, hallucinations, autonomous agents, task execution, GitHub repositories

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review