arXiv subjects

Qinyun Wu

Publications and source records attributed to Qinyun Wu.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

RepoMasterEval: Evaluating Code Completion via Real-World Repositories

With the growing reliance on automated code completion tools in software development, the need for comprehensive evaluation benchmarks has become critical. Existing benchmarks focus more on code completion in function and class level by providing text descriptions to prompt the model. By contrast, such descriptive prompt is commonly unavailable in real development and code completion can occur in wider range of situations such as in the middle of a function or a code block. These limitations makes existing evaluation benchmarks poorly align with the practical scenarios of code completion tools. In this paper, we propose RepoMasterEval, a novel benchmark for evaluating code completion models constructed from real-world repositories. Each benchmark datum is generated by masking a code snippet (ground truth) from one source code file with existing test suites. To improve test accuracy of model generated code, we employ mutation testing to measure the effectiveness of the test cases and we manually crafted new test cases for those test suites with low mutation score. Our empirical evaluation on 10 state-of-the-art models shows that test argumentation is critical in improving the accuracy of the benchmark and RepoMasterEval is able to report variance in model performance in real-world scenarios. The deployment of RepoMasterEval also revealed that the benchmark is useful to give accurate feedback during model training and the score is in high correlation with the model's performance in practice.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

CodeRepoQA: A Large-scale Benchmark for Software Engineering Question Answering

In this work, we introduce CodeRepoQA, a large-scale benchmark specifically designed for evaluating repository-level question-answering capabilities in the field of software engineering. CodeRepoQA encompasses five programming languages and covers a wide range of scenarios, enabling comprehensive evaluation of language models. To construct this dataset, we crawl data from 30 well-known repositories in GitHub, the largest platform for hosting and collaborating on code, and carefully filter raw data. In total, CodeRepoQA is a multi-turn question-answering benchmark with 585,687 entries, covering a diverse array of software engineering scenarios, with an average of 6.62 dialogue turns per entry. We evaluate ten popular large language models on our dataset and provide in-depth analysis. We find that LLMs still have limitations in question-answering capabilities in the field of software engineering, and medium-length contexts are more conducive to LLMs' performance. The entire benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/kinesiatricssxilm14/CodeRepoQA.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

A Real-World Benchmark for Evaluating Fine-Grained Issue Solving Capabilities of Large Language Models

Automatically resolving software issues is crucial for software development in practice, impacting the software quality and user experience. The process of resolving real-world issues encompasses tasks such as question-answering (QA), fault localization, and code editing. Existing benchmarks such as HumanEval fall short in their ability to assess LLMs' proficiency in solving issues within a codebase. Although benchmarks like SWE-Bench are designed to evaluate the LLMs' capability to handle real-world GitHub issues, the end-to-end evaluation method cannot provide granular insights on the performance of subtasks involved in issue solving. To address existing deficiencies in benchmarking LLMs for practical software engineering tasks, we introduce FAUN-Eval, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Fine-grAined issUe solviNg capabilities of LLMs. FAUN-Eval systematically assesses LLMs across three distinct tasks: QA, fault localization, and code editing. This benchmark is constructed using a dataset curated from 30 well-known GitHub repositories. For each entry, issue and pull request (PR) pairs are meticulously compiled and validated using cross-referencing and keyword verification methods. FAUN-Eval includes 300 entries and employs both LLM and manual checks to ensure data quality. We evaluate ten LLMs with FAUN-Eval, including four closed-source and six open-source models. Our experimental results reveal several key findings. We find that the top-performing LLMs differ across the different tasks. Additionally, features in issues may lead LLMs to generate incorrect information. Moreover, models may vary in their proficiency with texts of different lengths.

cs.SE↗