Despite the promising results of large multimodal models (LMMs) in complex vision-language tasks that require knowledge, reasoning, and perception abilities together, we surprisingly found that these models struggle with simple tasks on infographics that require perception only. As existing benchmarks primarily focus on end tasks that require various abilities, they provide limited, fine-grained insights into the limitations of the models' perception abilities. To address this gap, we leverage the theory of graphical perception, an approach used to study how humans decode visual information encoded on charts and graphs, to develop an evaluation framework for analyzing gaps in LMMs' perception abilities in charts. With automated task generation and response evaluation designs, our framework enables comprehensive and controlled testing of LMMs' graphical perception across diverse chart types, visual elements, and task types. We apply our framework to evaluate and diagnose the perception capabilities of state-of-the-art LMMs at three granularity levels (chart, visual element, and pixel). Our findings underscore several critical limitations of current state-of-the-art LMMs, including GPT-4o: their inability to (1) generalize across chart types, (2) understand fundamental visual elements, and (3) cross reference values within a chart. These insights provide guidance for future improvements in perception abilities of LMMs. The evaluation framework and labeled data are publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/lmm-graphical-perception.

This paper explores the potential of AI-powered tools to reshape data analysis, focusing on design considerations and challenges. We explore how the emergence of large language and multimodal models offers new opportunities to enhance various stages of data analysis workflow by translating high-level user intentions into executable code, charts, and insights. We then examine human-centered design principles that facilitate intuitive interactions, build user trust, and streamline the AI-assisted analysis workflow across multiple apps. Finally, we discuss the research challenges that impede the development of these AI-based systems such as enhancing model capabilities, evaluating and benchmarking, and understanding end-user needs.

Data wrangling, the process of preparing raw data for further analysis in computational notebooks, is a crucial yet time-consuming step in data science. Code generation has the potential to automate the data wrangling process to reduce analysts' overhead by translating user intents into executable code. Precisely generating data wrangling code necessitates a comprehensive consideration of the rich context present in notebooks, including textual context, code context and data context. However, notebooks often interleave multiple non-linear analysis tasks into linear sequence of code blocks, where the contextual dependencies are not clearly reflected. Directly training models with source code blocks fails to fully exploit the contexts for accurate wrangling code generation. To bridge the gap, we aim to construct a high quality datasets with clear and rich contexts to help training models for data wrangling code generation tasks. In this work, we first propose an automated approach, CoCoMine to mine data-wrangling code generation examples with clear multi-modal contextual dependency. It first adopts data flow analysis to identify the code blocks containing data wrangling codes. Then, CoCoMine extracts the contextualized datawrangling code examples through tracing and replaying notebooks. With CoCoMine, we construct CoCoNote, a dataset containing 58,221 examples for Contextualized Data-wrangling Code generation in Notebooks. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our dataset, we finetune a range of pretrained code models and prompt various large language models on our task. Furthermore, we also propose DataCoder, which encodes data context and code&textual contexts separately to enhance code generation. Experiment results demonstrate the significance of incorporating data context in data-wrangling code generation and the effectiveness of our model. We release code and data at url...

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.

Interpretable machine learning has exploded as an area of interest over the last decade, sparked by the rise of increasingly large datasets and deep neural networks. Simultaneously, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide array of tasks, offering a chance to rethink opportunities in interpretable machine learning. Notably, the capability to explain in natural language allows LLMs to expand the scale and complexity of patterns that can be given to a human. However, these new capabilities raise new challenges, such as hallucinated explanations and immense computational costs. In this position paper, we start by reviewing existing methods to evaluate the emerging field of LLM interpretation (both interpreting LLMs and using LLMs for explanation). We contend that, despite their limitations, LLMs hold the opportunity to redefine interpretability with a more ambitious scope across many applications, including in auditing LLMs themselves. We highlight two emerging research priorities for LLM interpretation: using LLMs to directly analyze new datasets and to generate interactive explanations.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in automating significant aspects of coding by producing natural code from informal natural language (NL) intent. However, when interacting with LLMs, users have no guarantees that the code suggestions produced correctly satisfy the intent they provided. In fact, it is hard to define a notion of correctness since natural language can be ambiguous and lacks a formal semantics. In this paper, we propose the workflow of {\it interactive test-driven code generation}, which leverages lightweight user feedback to (a) formalize the user intent using generated tests that can be useful for debugging, and (b) produce an improved set of code suggestions by pruning and ranking candidate code suggestions. We describe a language-agnostic abstract algorithm and a concrete implementation TiCoder. We perform an automated evaluation of TiCoder on the \emph{MBPP} and \emph{HumanEval} code generation benchmarks. Our results are promising with using the OpenAI Codex LLM: our best algorithm improves the \passk{1} code generation accuracy (in absolute percentages) between $22.49\%$ to $37.71\%$ for MBPP and between $24.79\%$ to $53.98\%$ for HumanEval using between 1 to 5 simulated user queries.

Pretrained language models have shown superior performance on many natural language processing tasks, yet they still struggle at multi-step formal reasoning tasks like grade school math problems. One key challenge of finetuning them to solve such math reasoning problems is that many existing datasets only contain one reference solution for each problem, despite the fact that there are often alternative solutions resembling different reasoning paths to the final answer. This way, the finetuned models are biased towards the limited reference solutions, which limits their generalization to unseen examples. To mitigate this issue, we propose to let the model perform sampling during training and learn from both self-sampled fully-correct solutions, which yield the correct answer upon execution, and partially-correct solutions, whose intermediate state matches an intermediate state of a known correct solution. We show that our use of self-sampled correct and partially-correct solutions can benefit learning and help guide the sampling process, leading to more efficient exploration of the solution space. Additionally, we explore various training objectives to support learning from multiple solutions per example and find they greatly affect the performance. Experiments on two math reasoning datasets show the effectiveness of our method compared to learning from a single reference solution with MLE, where we improve PASS@100 from 35.5% to 44.5% for GSM8K, and 27.6% to 36.2% PASS@80 for MathQA. Such improvements are also consistent across different model sizes. Our code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/TraceCodegen.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated an impressive ability to generate code for various programming tasks. In many instances, LLMs can generate a correct program for a task when given numerous trials. Consequently, a recent trend is to do large scale sampling of programs using a model and then filtering/ranking the programs based on the program execution on a small number of known unit tests to select one candidate solution. However, these approaches assume that the unit tests are given and assume the ability to safely execute the generated programs (which can do arbitrary dangerous operations such as file manipulations). Both of the above assumptions are impractical in real-world software development. In this paper, we propose CodeRanker, a neural ranker that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our CodeRanker is fault-aware i.e., it is trained to predict different kinds of execution information such as predicting the exact compile/runtime error type (e.g., an IndexError or a TypeError). We show that CodeRanker can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models (including Codex, GPT-Neo, GPT-J) on APPS, HumanEval and MBPP datasets.

Developing models that can automatically generate detailed code explanation can greatly benefit software maintenance and programming education. However, existing code-to-text generation models often produce only high-level summaries of code that do not capture implementation-level choices essential for these scenarios. To fill in this gap, we propose the code explanation generation task. We first conducted a human study to identify the criteria for high-quality explanatory docstring for code. Based on that, we collected and refined a large-scale code docstring corpus and formulated automatic evaluation metrics that best match human assessments. Finally, we present a multi-stage fine-tuning strategy and baseline models for the task. Our experiments show that (1) our refined training dataset lets models achieve better performance in the explanation generation tasks compared to larger unrefined data (15x larger), and (2) fine-tuned models can generate well-structured long docstrings comparable to human-written ones. We envision our training dataset, human-evaluation protocol, recommended metrics, and fine-tuning strategy can boost future code explanation research. The code and annotated data are available at https://github.com/subercui/CodeExp.

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