Automatic Program translation has enormous application value and hence has been attracting significant interest from AI researchers. However, we observe that current program translation models still make elementary syntax errors, particularly, when the target language does not have syntax elements in the source language. Metrics like BLUE, CodeBLUE and computation accuracy may not expose these issues. In this paper we introduce a new metrics for programming language translation and these metrics address these basic syntax errors. We develop a novel active defects probing suite called Syntactic Unit Tests (SUT) which includes a highly interpretable evaluation harness for accuracy and test scoring. Experiments have shown that even powerful models like ChatGPT still make mistakes on these basic unit tests. Specifically, compared to previous program translation task evaluation dataset, its pass rate on our unit tests has decreased by 26.15%. Further our evaluation harness reveal syntactic element errors in which these models exhibit deficiencies.

Software version migration and program translation are an important and costly part of the lifecycle of large codebases. Traditional machine translation relies on parallel corpora for supervised translation, which is not feasible for program translation due to a dearth of aligned data. Recent unsupervised neural machine translation techniques have overcome data limitations by included techniques such as back translation and low level compiler intermediate representations (IR). These methods face significant challenges due to the noise in code snippet alignment and the diversity of IRs respectively. In this paper we propose a novel model called Code Distillation (CoDist) whereby we capture the semantic and structural equivalence of code in a language agnostic intermediate representation. Distilled code serves as a translation pivot for any programming language, leading by construction to parallel corpora which scale to all available source code by simply applying the distillation compiler. We demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on CodeXGLUE and TransCoder GeeksForGeeks translation benchmarks, with an average absolute increase of 12.7% on the TransCoder GeeksforGeeks translation benchmark compare to TransCoder-ST.

Code coverage is a widely used metric for quantifying the extent to which program elements, such as statements or branches, are executed during testing. Calculating code coverage is resource-intensive, requiring code building and execution with additional overhead for the instrumentation. Furthermore, computing coverage of any snippet of code requires the whole program context. Using Machine Learning to amortize this expensive process could lower the cost of code coverage by requiring only the source code context, and the task of code coverage prediction can be a novel benchmark for judging the ability of models to understand code. We propose a novel benchmark task called Code Coverage Prediction for Large Language Models (LLMs). We formalize this task to evaluate the capability of LLMs in understanding code execution by determining which lines of a method are executed by a given test case and inputs. We curate and release a dataset we call COVERAGEEVAL by executing tests and code from the HumanEval dataset and collecting code coverage information. We report the performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs used for code-related tasks, including OpenAI's GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo, Google's BARD, and Anthropic's Claude, on the Code Coverage Prediction task. Finally, we argue that code coverage as a metric and pre-training data source are valuable for overall LLM performance on software engineering tasks.

Code generation models can benefit data scientists' productivity by automatically generating code from context and text descriptions. An important measure of the modeling progress is whether a model can generate code that can correctly execute to solve the task. However, due to the lack of an evaluation dataset that directly supports execution-based model evaluation, existing work relies on code surface form similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, CodeBLEU) for model selection, which can be inaccurate. To remedy this, we introduce ExeDS, an evaluation dataset for execution evaluation for data science code generation tasks. ExeDS contains a set of 534 problems from Jupyter Notebooks, each consisting of code context, task description, reference program, and the desired execution output. With ExeDS, we evaluate the execution performance of five state-of-the-art code generation models that have achieved high surface-form evaluation scores. Our experiments show that models with high surface-form scores do not necessarily perform well on execution metrics, and execution-based metrics can better capture model code generation errors. Source code and data can be found at https://github.com/Jun-jie-Huang/ExeDS