-
How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark
Authors:
Ruizhong Qiu,
Weiliang Will Zeng,
Hanghang Tong,
James Ezick,
Christopher Lott
Abstract:
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work,…
▽ More
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .
△ Less
Submitted 16 June, 2024; v1 submitted 10 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons
Authors:
Bertie Vidgen,
Adarsh Agrawal,
Ahmed M. Ahmed,
Victor Akinwande,
Namir Al-Nuaimi,
Najla Alfaraj,
Elie Alhajjar,
Lora Aroyo,
Trupti Bavalatti,
Max Bartolo,
Borhane Blili-Hamelin,
Kurt Bollacker,
Rishi Bomassani,
Marisa Ferrara Boston,
Siméon Campos,
Kal Chakra,
Canyu Chen,
Cody Coleman,
Zacharie Delpierre Coudert,
Leon Derczynski,
Debojyoti Dutta,
Ian Eisenberg,
James Ezick,
Heather Frase,
Brian Fuller
, et al. (75 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-pu…
▽ More
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.
△ Less
Submitted 13 May, 2024; v1 submitted 18 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
A Quantitative Theory of Bottleneck Structures for Data Networks
Authors:
Jordi Ros-Giralt,
Noah Amsel,
Sruthi Yellamraju,
James Ezick,
Richard Lethin,
Yuang Jiang,
Aosong Feng,
Leandros Tassiulas
Abstract:
The conventional view of the congestion control problem in data networks is based on the principle that a flow's performance is uniquely determined by the state of its bottleneck link, regardless of the topological properties of the network. However, recent work has shown that the behavior of congestion-controlled networks is better explained by models that account for the interactions between bot…
▽ More
The conventional view of the congestion control problem in data networks is based on the principle that a flow's performance is uniquely determined by the state of its bottleneck link, regardless of the topological properties of the network. However, recent work has shown that the behavior of congestion-controlled networks is better explained by models that account for the interactions between bottleneck links. These interactions are captured by a latent \textit{bottleneck structure}, a model describing the complex ripple effects that changes in one part of the network exert on the other parts. In this paper, we present a \textit{quantitative} theory of bottleneck structures (QTBS), a mathematical and engineering framework comprising a family of polynomial-time algorithms that can be used to reason about a wide variety of network optimization problems, including routing, capacity planning and flow control. QTBS can contribute to traffic engineering by making clear predictions about the relative performance of alternative flow routes, and by providing numerical recommendations for the optimal rate settings of traffic shapers. A particularly novel result in the domain of capacity planning indicates that previously established rules for the design of folded-Clos networks are suboptimal when flows are congestion controlled. We show that QTBS can be used to derive the optimal rules for this important class of topologies, and empirically demonstrate the correctness and efficacy of these results using the BBR and Cubic congestion-control algorithms.
△ Less
Submitted 6 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
