Running summarizing tools on a new article
This is the first time this article is requested and our AI summarizing tools have never been run on it. We can run our tools now if you click on the button "Run" donw the page but first make sure that it is the right article.
Copilot Evaluation Harness: Evaluating LLM-Guided Software Programming
Anisha Agarwal, Aaron Chan, Shubham Chandel, Jinu Jang, Shaun Miller, Roshanak Zilouchian Moghaddam, Yevhen Mohylevskyy, Neel Sundaresan, Michele Tufano
Abstract: The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into Development Environments (IDEs) has become a focal point in modern software development. LLMs such as OpenAI GPT-3.5/4 and Code Llama offer the potential to significantly augment developer productivity by serving as intelligent, chat-driven programming assistants. However, utilizing LLMs out of the box is unlikely to be optimal for any given scenario. Rather, each system requires the LLM to be honed to its set of heuristics to ensure the best performance. In this paper, we introduce the Copilot evaluation harness: a set of data and tools for evaluating LLM-guided IDE interactions, covering various programming scenarios and languages. We propose our metrics as a more robust and information-dense evaluation than previous state of the art evaluation systems. We design and compute both static and execution based success metrics for scenarios encompassing a wide range of developer tasks, including code generation from natural language (generate), documentation generation from code (doc), test case generation (test), bug-fixing (fix), and workspace understanding and query resolution (workspace). These success metrics are designed to evaluate the performance of LLMs within a given IDE and its respective parameter space. Our learnings from evaluating three common LLMs using these metrics can inform the development and validation of future scenarios in LLM guided IDEs.
⚠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.