Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be immune to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-free versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 110B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 65% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions will be added and updated on a monthly basis, and we will release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

A diverse array of reasoning strategies has been proposed to elicit the capabilities of large language models. However, in this paper, we point out that traditional evaluations which focus solely on performance metrics miss a key factor: the increased effectiveness due to additional compute. By overlooking this aspect, a skewed view of strategy efficiency is often presented. This paper introduces a framework that incorporates the compute budget into the evaluation, providing a more informative comparison that takes into account both performance metrics and computational cost. In this budget-aware perspective, we find that complex reasoning strategies often don't surpass simpler baselines purely due to algorithmic ingenuity, but rather due to the larger computational resources allocated. When we provide a simple baseline like chain-of-thought self-consistency with comparable compute resources, it frequently outperforms reasoning strategies proposed in the literature. In this scale-aware perspective, we find that unlike self-consistency, certain strategies such as multi-agent debate or Reflexion can become worse if more compute budget is utilized.

Testing plays a pivotal role in ensuring software quality, yet conventional Search Based Software Testing (SBST) methods often struggle with complex software units, achieving suboptimal test coverage. Recent work using large language models (LLMs) for test generation have focused on improving generation quality through optimizing the test generation context and correcting errors in model outputs, but use fixed prompting strategies that prompt the model to generate tests without additional guidance. As a result LLM-generated test suites still suffer from low coverage. In this paper, we present SymPrompt, a code-aware prompting strategy for LLMs in test generation. SymPrompt's approach is based on recent work that demonstrates LLMs can solve more complex logical problems when prompted to reason about the problem in a multi-step fashion. We apply this methodology to test generation by deconstructing the testsuite generation process into a multi-stage sequence, each of which is driven by a specific prompt aligned with the execution paths of the method under test, and exposing relevant type and dependency focal context to the model. Our approach enables pretrained LLMs to generate more complete test cases without any additional training. We implement SymPrompt using the TreeSitter parsing framework and evaluate on a benchmark challenging methods from open source Python projects. SymPrompt enhances correct test generations by a factor of 5 and bolsters relative coverage by 26% for CodeGen2. Notably, when applied to GPT-4, symbolic path prompts improve coverage by over 2x compared to baseline prompting strategies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit considerable variation in the quality of their sampled outputs. Reranking and selecting the best generation from the sampled set is a popular way of obtaining strong gains in generation quality. In this paper, we present a novel approach for reranking LLM generations. Unlike other techniques that might involve additional inferences or training a specialized reranker, our approach relies on easy to compute pairwise statistics between the generations that have minimal compute overhead. We show that our approach can be formalized as an extension of self-consistency and analyze its performance in that framework, theoretically as well as via simulations. We show strong improvements for selecting the best $k$ generations for code generation tasks as well as robust improvements for best generation for the tasks of autoformalization, and summarization. While our approach only assumes black-box access to LLMs, we show that additional access to token probabilities can improve performance even further.

We present new benchmarks on evaluation code generation models: MBXP and Multilingual HumanEval, and MathQA-X. These datasets cover over 10 programming languages and are generated using a scalable conversion framework that transpiles prompts and test cases from the original Python datasets into the corresponding data in the target language. Using these benchmarks, we are able to assess the performance of code generation models in a multi-lingual fashion, and discovered generalization ability of language models on out-of-domain languages, advantages of multi-lingual models over mono-lingual, the ability of few-shot prompting to teach the model new languages, and zero-shot translation abilities even on mono-lingual settings. Furthermore, we use our code generation model to perform large-scale bootstrapping to obtain synthetic canonical solutions in several languages, which can be used for other code-related evaluations such as code insertion, robustness, or summarization tasks. Overall, our benchmarks represents a significant step towards a deeper understanding of language models' code generation abilities. We publicly release our code and datasets at https://github.com/amazon-research/mxeval.

The inaccuracy of neural network models on inputs that do not stem from the training data distribution is both problematic and at times unrecognized. Model uncertainty estimation can address this issue, where uncertainty estimates are often based on the variation in predictions produced by a diverse ensemble of models applied to the same input. Here we describe Maximize Overall Diversity (MOD), a straightforward approach to improve ensemble-based uncertainty estimates by encouraging larger overall diversity in ensemble predictions across all possible inputs that might be encountered in the future. When applied to various neural network ensembles, MOD significantly improves predictive performance for out-of-distribution test examples without sacrificing in-distribution performance on 38 Protein-DNA binding regression datasets, 9 UCI datasets, and the IMDB-Wiki image dataset. Across many Bayesian optimization tasks, the performance of UCB acquisition is also greatly improved by leveraging MOD uncertainty estimates.

Local explanation frameworks aim to rationalize particular decisions made by a black-box prediction model. Existing techniques are often restricted to a specific type of predictor or based on input saliency, which may be undesirably sensitive to factors unrelated to the model's decision making process. We instead propose sufficient input subsets that identify minimal subsets of features whose observed values alone suffice for the same decision to be reached, even if all other input feature values are missing. General principles that globally govern a model's decision-making can also be revealed by searching for clusters of such input patterns across many data points. Our approach is conceptually straightforward, entirely model-agnostic, simply implemented using instance-wise backward selection, and able to produce more concise rationales than existing techniques. We demonstrate the utility of our interpretation method on various neural network models trained on text, image, and genomic data.

We formulate a general framework for pseudo-Boolean multi-valued nogood-learning, generalizing conflict analysis performed by modern SAT solvers and its recent extension for disjunctions of multi-valued variables. This framework can handle more general constraints as well as different domain representations, such as interval domains which are commonly used for bounds consistency in constraint programming (CP), and even set variables. Our empirical evaluation shows that our solver, built upon this framework, works robustly across a number of challenging domains.