In this paper, we propose shifting the focus of robustness evaluation for Neural Program Repair (NPR) techniques toward naturally-occurring data transformations. To accomplish this, we first examine the naturalness of semantic-preserving transformations through a two-stage human study. This study includes (1) interviews with senior software developers to establish concrete criteria for evaluating the naturalness of these transformations, and (2) a survey involving 10 developers to assess the naturalness of 1,178 transformations, i.e., pairs of original and transformed programs, applied to 225 real-world bugs. Our findings show that only 60% of these transformations are deemed natural, while 20% are considered unnatural, with strong agreement among annotators. Moreover, the unnaturalness of these transformations significantly impacts both their applicability to benchmarks and the conclusions drawn from robustness testing. Next, we conduct natural robustness testing on NPR techniques to assess their true effectiveness against real-world data variations. Our experimental results reveal a substantial number of prediction changes in NPR techniques, leading to significant reductions in both plausible and correct patch rates when comparing performance on the original and transformed datasets. Additionally, we observe notable differences in performance improvements between NPR techniques, suggesting potential biases on NPR evaluation introduced by limited datasets. Finally, we propose an LLM-based metric to automate the assessment of transformation naturalness, ensuring the scalability of natural robustness testing.

The lightning-like growth of large language models (LLMs) has taken the world by storm. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is radically reshaping business, education, government, academia and other parts of society. Yet, for all the remarkable capabilities these systems deliver--and they are clearly impressive--a major question emerges: how can data scientists measure model performance and fully understand how they gain abilities and skills? It is far from an abstract question. These criteria, in turn, require an understanding of what constitutes correctness.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved substantial progress in processing long contexts but still struggle with long-context reasoning. Existing approaches typically involve fine-tuning LLMs with synthetic data, which depends on annotations from human experts or advanced models like GPT-4, thus restricting further advancements. To address this issue, we investigate the potential for LLMs to self-improve in long-context reasoning and propose \ours, an approach specifically designed for this purpose. This approach is straightforward: we sample multiple outputs for each question, score them with Minimum Bayes Risk, and then apply supervised fine-tuning or preference optimization based on these outputs. Extensive experiments on several leading LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of \ours, with an absolute improvement of $4.2$ points for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Furthermore, \ours achieves superior performance compared to prior approaches that depend on data produced by human experts or advanced models. We anticipate that this work will open new avenues for self-improvement techniques in long-context scenarios, which are essential for the continual advancement of LLMs.

Rapid developments in AI and its adoption across various domains have necessitated a need to build robust guardrails and risk containment plans while ensuring equitable benefits for the betterment of society. The current technology-centered approach has resulted in a fragmented, reactive, and ineffective policy apparatus. This paper highlights the immediate and urgent need to pivot to a society-centered approach to develop comprehensive, coherent, forward-looking AI policy. To this end, we present a Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) framework for AI policy along with proposals on implementation of its various components. While the SOP framework is presented from a US-centric view, the takeaways are general and applicable globally.

Bug fixing and code generation have been core research topics in software development for many years. The recent explosive growth in Large Language Models has completely transformed these spaces, putting in reach incredibly powerful tools for both. In this survey, 27 recent papers have been reviewed and split into two groups: one dedicated to Automated Program Repair (APR) and LLM integration and the other to code generation using LLMs. The first group consists of new methods for bug detection and repair, which include locating semantic errors, security vulnerabilities, and runtime failure bugs. The place of LLMs in reducing manual debugging efforts is emphasized in this work by APR toward context-aware fixes, with innovations that boost accuracy and efficiency in automatic debugging. The second group dwells on code generation, providing an overview of both general-purpose LLMs fine-tuned for programming and task-specific models. It also presents methods to improve code generation, such as identifier-aware training, fine-tuning at the instruction level, and incorporating semantic code structures. This survey work contrasts the methodologies in APR and code generation to identify trends such as using LLMs, feedback loops to enable iterative code improvement and open-source models. It also discusses the challenges of achieving functional correctness and security and outlines future directions for research in LLM-based software development.

What ethical concerns, if any, do LLM researchers have? We introduce EthiCon, a corpus of 1,580 ethical concern statements extracted from scientific papers published in the ACL Anthology. We extract ethical concern keywords from the statements and show promising results in automating the concern identification process. Through a survey, we compare the ethical concerns of the corpus to the concerns listed by the general public and professionals in the field. Finally, we compare our retrieved ethical concerns with existing taxonomies pointing to gaps and future research directions.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a central component of modern LLM systems, particularly in scenarios where up-to-date information is crucial for accurately responding to user queries or when queries exceed the scope of the training data. The advent of time-series foundation models (TSFM), such as Chronos, and the need for effective zero-shot forecasting performance across various time-series domains motivates the question: Do benefits of RAG similarly carry over to time series forecasting? In this paper, we advocate that the dynamic and event-driven nature of time-series data makes RAG a crucial component of TSFMs and introduce a principled RAG framework for time-series forecasting, called Retrieval Augmented Forecasting (RAF). Within RAF, we develop efficient strategies for retrieving related time-series examples and incorporating them into forecast. Through experiments and mechanistic studies, we demonstrate that RAF indeed improves the forecasting accuracy across diverse time series domains and the improvement is more significant for larger TSFM sizes.

Traditional decision tree algorithms are explainable but struggle with non-linear, high-dimensional data, limiting its applicability in complex decision-making. Neural networks excel at capturing complex patterns but sacrifice explainability in the process. In this work, we present GPTree, a novel framework combining explainability of decision trees with the advanced reasoning capabilities of LLMs. GPTree eliminates the need for feature engineering and prompt chaining, requiring only a task-specific prompt and leveraging a tree-based structure to dynamically split samples. We also introduce an expert-in-the-loop feedback mechanism to further enhance performance by enabling human intervention to refine and rebuild decision paths, emphasizing the harmony between human expertise and machine intelligence. Our decision tree achieved a 7.8% precision rate for identifying "unicorn" startups at the inception stage of a startup, surpassing gpt-4o with few-shot learning as well as the best human decision-makers (3.1% to 5.6%).

Attributing outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) in adversarial settings-such as cyberattacks and disinformation-presents significant challenges that are likely to grow in importance. We investigate this attribution problem using formal language theory, specifically language identification in the limit as introduced by Gold and extended by Angluin. By modeling LLM outputs as formal languages, we analyze whether finite text samples can uniquely pinpoint the originating model. Our results show that due to the non-identifiability of certain language classes, under some mild assumptions about overlapping outputs from fine-tuned models it is theoretically impossible to attribute outputs to specific LLMs with certainty. This holds also when accounting for expressivity limitations of Transformer architectures. Even with direct model access or comprehensive monitoring, significant computational hurdles impede attribution efforts. These findings highlight an urgent need for proactive measures to mitigate risks posed by adversarial LLM use as their influence continues to expand.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in automating software testing, specifically in generating unit test cases. However, the validation of LLM-generated test cases remains a challenge, particularly when the ground truth is unavailable. This paper introduces VALTEST, a novel framework designed to automatically validate test cases generated by LLMs by leveraging token probabilities. We evaluate VALTEST using nine test suites generated from three datasets (HumanEval, MBPP, and LeetCode) across three LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, and LLama3.1 8b). By extracting statistical features from token probabilities, we train a machine learning model to predict test case validity. VALTEST increases the validity rate of test cases by 6.2% to 24%, depending on the dataset and LLM. Our results suggest that token probabilities are reliable indicators for distinguishing between valid and invalid test cases, which provides a robust solution for improving the correctness of LLM-generated test cases in software testing. In addition, we found that replacing the identified invalid test cases by VALTEST, using a Chain-of-Thought prompting results in a more effective test suite while keeping the high validity rates.