We introduce CPP-UT-Bench, a benchmark dataset to measure C++ unit test generation capability of a large language model (LLM). CPP-UT-Bench aims to reflect a broad and diverse set of C++ codebases found in the real world. The dataset includes 2,653 {code, unit test} pairs drawn from 14 different opensource C++ codebases spanned across nine diverse domains including machine learning, software testing, parsing, standard input-output, data engineering, logging, complete expression evaluation, key value storage, and server protocols. We demonstrated the effectiveness of CPP-UT-Bench as a benchmark dataset through extensive experiments in in-context learning, parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT), and full-parameter fine-tuning. We also discussed the challenges of the dataset compilation and insights we learned from in-context learning and fine-tuning experiments. Besides the CPP-UT-Bench dataset and data compilation code, we are also offering the fine-tuned model weights for further research. For nine out of ten experiments, our fine-tuned LLMs outperformed the corresponding base models by an average of more than 70%.

Large pretrained models can be used as annotators, helping replace or augment crowdworkers and enabling distilling generalist models into smaller specialist models. Unfortunately, this comes at a cost: employing top-of-the-line models often requires paying thousands of dollars for API calls, while the resulting datasets are static and challenging to audit. To address these challenges, we propose a simple alternative: rather than directly querying labels from pretrained models, we task models to generate programs that can produce labels. These programs can be stored and applied locally, re-used and extended, and cost orders of magnitude less. Our system, Alchemist, obtains comparable to or better performance than large language model-based annotation in a range of tasks for a fraction of the cost: on average, improvements amount to a 12.9% enhancement while the total labeling costs across all datasets are reduced by a factor of approximately 500x.

Algorithmic decisions are now being used on a daily basis, and based on Machine Learning (ML) processes that may be complex and biased. This raises several concerns given the critical impact that biased decisions may have on individuals or on society as a whole. Not only unfair outcomes affect human rights, they also undermine public trust in ML and AI. In this paper we address fairness issues of ML models based on decision outcomes, and we show how the simple idea of "feature dropout" followed by an "ensemble approach" can improve model fairness. To illustrate, we will revisit the case of "LimeOut" that was proposed to tackle "process fairness", which measures a model's reliance on sensitive or discriminatory features. Given a classifier, a dataset and a set of sensitive features, LimeOut first assesses whether the classifier is fair by checking its reliance on sensitive features using "Lime explanations". If deemed unfair, LimeOut then applies feature dropout to obtain a pool of classifiers. These are then combined into an ensemble classifier that was empirically shown to be less dependent on sensitive features without compromising the classifier's accuracy. We present different experiments on multiple datasets and several state of the art classifiers, which show that LimeOut's classifiers improve (or at least maintain) not only process fairness but also other fairness metrics such as individual and group fairness, equal opportunity, and demographic parity.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are becoming increasingly present in several aspects of human life, especially, those dealing with decision making. Many of these algorithmic decisions are taken without human supervision and through decision making processes that are not transparent. This raises concerns regarding the potential bias of these processes towards certain groups of society, which may entail unfair results and, possibly, violations of human rights. Dealing with such biased models is one of the major concerns to maintain the public trust. In this paper, we address the question of process or procedural fairness. More precisely, we consider the problem of making classifiers fairer by reducing their dependence on sensitive features while increasing (or, at least, maintaining) their accuracy. To achieve both, we draw inspiration from "dropout" techniques in neural based approaches, and propose a framework that relies on "feature drop-out" to tackle process fairness. We make use of "LIME Explanations" to assess a classifier's fairness and to determine the sensitive features to remove. This produces a pool of classifiers (through feature dropout) whose ensemble is shown empirically to be less dependent on sensitive features, and with improved or no impact on accuracy.