PreprintCited by 3Software Engineering ResearchTopic ModelingSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

CodeEditorBench: Evaluating Code Editing Capability of Large Language Models

Open access
Guo, Jiawei, Li, Ziming, Liu, Xueling, Ma, Kaijing, Zheng, Tianyu, Yu, Zhouliang, Pan, Ding, LI, Yizhi +8 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) for code are rapidly evolving, with code editing emerging as a critical capability. We introduce CodeEditorBench, an evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess the performance of LLMs in code editing tasks, including debugging, translating, polishing, and requirement switching. Unlike existing benchmarks focusing solely on code generation, CodeEditorBench emphasizes real-world scenarios and practical aspects of software development. We curate diverse coding challenges and scenarios from five sources, covering various programming languages, complexity levels, and editing tasks. Evaluation of 19 LLMs reveals that closed-source models (particularly Gemini-Ultra and GPT-4), outperform open-source models in CodeEditorBench, highlighting differences in model performance based on problem types and prompt sensitivities. CodeEditorBench aims to catalyze advancements in LLMs by providing a robust platform for assessing code editing capabilities. We will release all prompts and datasets to enable the community to expand the dataset and benchmark emerging LLMs. By introducing CodeEditorBench, we contribute to the advancement of LLMs in code editing and provide a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.03543

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • APPS, CodeEditorBench-switch-java, CodeEditorBench-debug-py, CodeEditorBench-switchc, and CodeEditorBench-switch-py are mainly derived from LeetCode.

    “Benchmarks such as APPS, CodeEditorBench -switch-java , CodeEditorBench -debug-py , CodeEditorBench -switchc , and CodeEditorBench -switch-py are mainly derived from LeetCode.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, J., Li, Z., Liu, X., Ma, K., Zheng, T., Yu, Z., Pan, D., LI, Y., Liu, R., Wang, Y., Guo, S., Qu, X., Yue, X., Zhang, G., Chen, W., & Fu, J.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394007603
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
code editing, large language models, benchmark, debugging, program translation, prompt sensitivity, open-source vs closed-source models, GPT-4, software development

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