-
The Counterfeit Conundrum: Can Code Language Models Grasp the Nuances of Their Incorrect Generations?
Authors:
Alex Gu,
Wen-Ding Li,
Naman Jain,
Theo X. Olausson,
Celine Lee,
Koushik Sen,
Armando Solar-Lezama
Abstract:
While language models are increasingly more proficient at code generation, they still frequently generate incorrect programs. Many of these programs are obviously wrong, but others are more subtle and pass weaker correctness checks such as being able to compile. In this work, we focus on these counterfeit samples: programs sampled from a language model that 1) have a high enough log-probability to…
▽ More
While language models are increasingly more proficient at code generation, they still frequently generate incorrect programs. Many of these programs are obviously wrong, but others are more subtle and pass weaker correctness checks such as being able to compile. In this work, we focus on these counterfeit samples: programs sampled from a language model that 1) have a high enough log-probability to be generated at a moderate temperature and 2) pass weak correctness checks. Overall, we discover that most models have a very shallow understanding of counterfeits through three clear failure modes. First, models mistakenly classify them as correct. Second, models are worse at reasoning about the execution behaviour of counterfeits and often predict their execution results as if they were correct. Third, when asking models to fix counterfeits, the likelihood of a model successfully repairing a counterfeit is often even lower than that of sampling a correct program from scratch. Counterfeits also have very unexpected properties: first, counterfeit programs for problems that are easier for a model to solve are not necessarily easier to detect and only slightly easier to execute and repair. Second, counterfeits from a given model are just as confusing to the model itself as they are to other models. Finally, both strong and weak models are able to generate counterfeit samples that equally challenge all models. In light of our findings, we recommend that care and caution be taken when relying on models to understand their own samples, especially when no external feedback is incorporated.
△ Less
Submitted 29 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code
Authors:
Gabriel Grand,
Lionel Wong,
Maddy Bowers,
Theo X. Olausson,
Muxin Liu,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum,
Jacob Andreas
Abstract:
While large language models (LLMs) now excel at code generation, a key aspect of software development is the art of refactoring: consolidating code into libraries of reusable and readable programs. In this paper, we introduce LILO, a neurosymbolic framework that iteratively synthesizes, compresses, and documents code to build libraries tailored to particular problem domains. LILO combines LLM-guid…
▽ More
While large language models (LLMs) now excel at code generation, a key aspect of software development is the art of refactoring: consolidating code into libraries of reusable and readable programs. In this paper, we introduce LILO, a neurosymbolic framework that iteratively synthesizes, compresses, and documents code to build libraries tailored to particular problem domains. LILO combines LLM-guided program synthesis with recent algorithmic advances in automated refactoring from Stitch: a symbolic compression system that efficiently identifies optimal lambda abstractions across large code corpora. To make these abstractions interpretable, we introduce an auto-documentation (AutoDoc) procedure that infers natural language names and docstrings based on contextual examples of usage. In addition to improving human readability, we find that AutoDoc boosts performance by hel** LILO's synthesizer to interpret and deploy learned abstractions. We evaluate LILO on three inductive program synthesis benchmarks for string editing, scene reasoning, and graphics composition. Compared to existing neural and symbolic methods - including the state-of-the-art library learning algorithm DreamCoder - LILO solves more complex tasks and learns richer libraries that are grounded in linguistic knowledge.
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2024; v1 submitted 30 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers
Authors:
Theo X. Olausson,
Alex Gu,
Benjamin Lipkin,
Cedegao E. Zhang,
Armando Solar-Lezama,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum,
Roger Levy
Abstract:
Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing…
▽ More
Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways. In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation. In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic. These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference. Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate. On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively. When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO. Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes. We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers. All corresponding code is publicly available at https://github.com/benlipkin/linc
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2024; v1 submitted 23 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?
Authors:
Theo X. Olausson,
Jeevana Priya Inala,
Chenglong Wang,
Jianfeng Gao,
Armando Solar-Lezama
Abstract:
Large language models have shown remarkable aptitude in code generation, but still struggle to perform complex tasks. Self-repair -- in which the model debugs and repairs its own code -- has recently become a popular way to boost performance in these settings. However, despite its increasing popularity, existing studies of self-repair have been limited in scope; in many settings, its efficacy thus…
▽ More
Large language models have shown remarkable aptitude in code generation, but still struggle to perform complex tasks. Self-repair -- in which the model debugs and repairs its own code -- has recently become a popular way to boost performance in these settings. However, despite its increasing popularity, existing studies of self-repair have been limited in scope; in many settings, its efficacy thus remains poorly understood. In this paper, we analyze Code Llama, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4's ability to perform self-repair on problems taken from HumanEval and APPS. We find that when the cost of carrying out repair is taken into account, performance gains are often modest, vary a lot between subsets of the data, and are sometimes not present at all. We hypothesize that this is because self-repair is bottlenecked by the model's ability to provide feedback on its own code; using a stronger model to artificially boost the quality of the feedback, we observe substantially larger performance gains. Similarly, a small-scale study in which we provide GPT-4 with feedback from human participants suggests that even for the strongest models, self-repair still lags far behind what can be achieved with human-level debugging.
△ Less
Submitted 2 February, 2024; v1 submitted 16 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Top-Down Synthesis for Library Learning
Authors:
Matthew Bowers,
Theo X. Olausson,
Lionel Wong,
Gabriel Grand,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum,
Kevin Ellis,
Armando Solar-Lezama
Abstract:
This paper introduces corpus-guided top-down synthesis as a mechanism for synthesizing library functions that capture common functionality from a corpus of programs in a domain specific language (DSL). The algorithm builds abstractions directly from initial DSL primitives, using syntactic pattern matching of intermediate abstractions to intelligently prune the search space and guide the algorithm…
▽ More
This paper introduces corpus-guided top-down synthesis as a mechanism for synthesizing library functions that capture common functionality from a corpus of programs in a domain specific language (DSL). The algorithm builds abstractions directly from initial DSL primitives, using syntactic pattern matching of intermediate abstractions to intelligently prune the search space and guide the algorithm towards abstractions that maximally capture shared structures in the corpus. We present an implementation of the approach in a tool called Stitch and evaluate it against the state-of-the-art deductive library learning algorithm from DreamCoder. Our evaluation shows that Stitch is 3-4 orders of magnitude faster and uses 2 orders of magnitude less memory while maintaining comparable or better library quality (as measured by compressivity). We also demonstrate Stitch's scalability on corpora containing hundreds of complex programs that are intractable with prior deductive approaches and show empirically that it is robust to terminating the search procedure early -- further allowing it to scale to challenging datasets by means of early stop**.
△ Less
Submitted 15 January, 2023; v1 submitted 29 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
