Evaluating Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models on Code Comprehension and Generation

AI-generated keywords: Instructed LLMs Code Comprehension Code Generation Model Recommendation Performance Trade-offs

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Instructed LLMs are competitive and can outperform small SOTA models in code comprehension and generation tasks
  • Larger instructed LLMs do not always perform better on code-related tasks
  • Incorporating demonstration examples improves performance, but can sometimes lead to instability or worse performance
  • BM25-based shot selection strategy performs significantly better than random or fixed selection methods for generation problems
  • Fine-tuning enhances model performance compared to zero/one shot performance
  • Instructed LLMs outperform small SOTA models and similar scaled LLMs without instruction tuning after fine-tuning on downstream task dataset
  • Practical implications for model recommendation and usage, as well as insights into performance and cost trade-offs
  • Suggestions for future research directions in this area
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Zhiqiang Yuan, Junwei Liu, Qiancheng Zi, Mingwei Liu, Xin Peng, Yiling Lou

Abstract: In this work, we evaluate 10 open-source instructed LLMs on four representative code comprehension and generation tasks. We have the following main findings. First, for the zero-shot setting, instructed LLMs are very competitive on code comprehension and generation tasks and sometimes even better than small SOTA models specifically fine-tuned on each downstream task. We also find that larger instructed LLMs are not always better on code-related tasks. Second, for the few-shot setting, we find that adding demonstration examples substantially helps instructed LLMs perform better on most code comprehension and generation tasks; however, the examples would sometimes induce unstable or even worse performance. Furthermore, we find widely-used BM25-based shot selection strategy significantly outperforms the basic random selection or fixed selection only on generation problems. Third, for the fine-tuning setting, we find that fine-tuning could further improve the model performance on downstream code comprehension and generation tasks compared to the zero-shot/one-shot performance. In addition, after being fine-tuned on the same downstream task dataset, instructed LLMs outperform both the small SOTA models and similar-scaled LLMs without instruction tuning. Based on our findings, we further present practical implications on model and usage recommendation, performance and cost trade-offs, and future direction.

Submitted to arXiv on 02 Aug. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2308.01240v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In this work, the authors evaluate 10 open-source instructed Large Language Models (LLMs) on four representative code comprehension and generation tasks. They make several key findings. Firstly, in the zero-shot setting, instructed LLMs are highly competitive on code comprehension and generation tasks, and in some cases even outperform small State-of-the-Art (SOTA) models that are fine-tuned specifically for each downstream task. Interestingly, the authors also observe that larger instructed LLMs do not always perform better on code-related tasks. Secondly, in the few-shot setting, the authors find that incorporating demonstration examples significantly improves the performance of instructed LLMs on most code comprehension and generation tasks. However, they note that these examples can sometimes lead to unstable or even worse performance. Furthermore, a widely used BM25-based shot selection strategy is found to perform significantly better than basic random selection or fixed selection methods only on generation problems. Thirdly, in the fine-tuning setting, it is observed that fine-tuning further enhances model performance on downstream code comprehension and generation tasks compared to zero/one shot performance. Additionally after being fine tuned on same downstream task dataset instructed LLMs outperform both small SOTA models as well as similar scaled LLMs without instruction tuning. Based on their findings the authors provide practical implications for model recommendation and usage as well as insights into performance and cost trade offs. They also suggest future research directions in this area. Overall this study contributes to understanding how instructed LLMs perform on various code related tasks under different settings and provides valuable insights for improving their effectiveness in real world applications.
Created on 19 Sep. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.