How to evaluate the coding abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) remains an open question. We find that existing benchmarks are poorly aligned with real-world code repositories and are insufficient to evaluate the coding abilities of LLMs.To address the knowledge gap, we propose a new benchmark named DevEval, which has three advances. (1) DevEval aligns with real-world repositories in multiple dimensions, e.g., code and dependency distributions. (2) DevEval is annotated by 13 developers and contains comprehensive annotations (e.g., requirements, original repositories, reference code, and reference dependencies). (3) DevEval comprises 1,825 testing samples from 115 repositories, covering 10 popular domains (e.g., Internet, Database). Based on DevEval, we propose repository-level code generation and evaluate 8 popular LLMs on DevEval (e.g., gpt-4, gpt-3.5, StarCoder 2, DeepSeek Coder, CodeLLaMa). Our experiments reveal these LLMs’ coding abilities in real-world code repositories. For example, the highest Pass@1 of gpt-4 only is 53.04% in our experiments. We also analyze LLMs’ failed cases and summarize their shortcomings. We hope DevEval can facilitate the development of LLMs in real code repositories. DevEval, prompts, and LLMs’ predictions have been released.

Large language models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable potential across various tasks by conditioning on prompts. However, the quality of different human-written prompts leads to substantial discrepancies in LLMs’ performance, and improving prompts usually necessitates considerable human effort and expertise. To this end, this paper proposes Prompt with Actor-Critic Editing (PACE) for LLMs to enable automatic prompt editing. Drawing inspiration from the actor-critic algorithm in reinforcement learning, PACE leverages LLMs as the dual roles of actors and critics, conceptualizing prompt as a type of policy. PACE refines prompt, taking into account the feedback from both actors performing prompt and critics criticizing response. This process helps LLMs better align prompt to a specific task, thanks to real responses and thinking from LLMs.We conduct extensive experiments on 24 instruction induction tasks and 21 big-bench tasks. Experimental results indicate that PACE elevates the relative performance of medium/low-quality human-written prompts by up to 98%, which has comparable performance to high-quality human-written prompts. Moreover, PACE also exhibits notable efficacy for prompt generation.

Recent statements about the impressive capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are usually supported by evaluating on open-access benchmarks. Considering the vast size and wide-ranging sources of LLMs’ training data, it could explicitly or implicitly include test data, leading to LLMs being more susceptible to data contamination. However, due to the opacity of training data, the black-box access of models, and the rapid growth of synthetic training data, detecting and mitigating data contamination for LLMs faces significant challenges. In this paper, we propose CDD, which stands for Contamination Detection via output Distribution for LLMs. CDD necessitates only the sampled texts to detect data contamination, by identifying the peakedness of LLM’s output distribution. To mitigate the impact of data contamination in evaluation, we also present TED: Trustworthy Evaluation via output Distribution, based on the correction of LLM’s output distribution. To facilitate this study, we introduce two benchmarks, i.e., DETCON and COMIEVAL, for data contamination detection and contamination mitigation evaluation tasks. Extensive experimental results show that CDD achieves the average relative improvements of 21.8%-30.2% over other contamination detection approaches in terms of Accuracy, F1 Score, and AUC metrics, and can effectively detect implicit contamination. TED substantially mitigates performance improvements up to 66.9% attributed to data contamination across various contamination setups. In real-world applications, we reveal that ChatGPT exhibits a high potential to suffer from data contamination on HumanEval benchmark.