Code generation models have increasingly become integral to aiding software development.

Obtaining multiple meaningfully diverse, high quality samples from Large Language Models for a fixed prompt remains an open challenge. Current methods for increasing diversity often only operate at the token-level, paraphrasing the same response. This is problematic because it leads to poor exploration on reasoning problems and to unengaging, repetitive conversational agents. To address this we propose Intent Factored Generation (IFG), factorising the sampling process into two stages. First, we sample a semantically dense intent, e.g., a summary or keywords. Second, we sample the final response conditioning on both the original prompt and the intent from the first stage. This allows us to use a higher temperature during the intent step to promote conceptual diversity, and a lower temperature during the final generation to ensure the outputs are coherent and self-consistent. Additionally, we find that prompting the model to explicitly state its intent for each step of the chain-of-thought before generating the step is beneficial for reasoning tasks. We demonstrate our method's effectiveness across a diverse set of tasks. We show this method improves both pass@k and Reinforcement Learning from Verifier Feedback on maths and code tasks. For instruction-tuning, we combine IFG with Direct Preference Optimisation to increase conversational diversity without sacrificing reward. Finally, we achieve higher diversity while maintaining the quality of generations on a general language modelling task, using a new dataset of reader comments and news articles that we collect and open-source. In summary, we present a simple method of increasing the sample diversity of LLMs while maintaining performance. This method can be implemented by changing the prompt and varying the temperature during generation, making it easy to integrate into many algorithms for gains across various applications.

Teaching to improve student models (e.g., knowledge distillation) is an extensively studied methodology in LLMs. However, for humans, teaching not only improves students but also improves teachers. We ask: Can LLMs also learn by teaching (LbT)? If yes, we can potentially unlock the possibility of continuously advancing the models without solely relying on human-produced data or stronger models. In this paper, we provide a preliminary exploration of this ambitious agenda. We show that LbT ideas can be incorporated into existing LLM training/prompting pipelines and provide noticeable improvements. Specifically, we design three methods, each mimicking one of the three levels of LbT in humans: observing students' feedback, learning from the feedback, and learning iteratively, with the goals of improving answer accuracy without training and improving models' inherent capability with fine-tuning. The findings are encouraging. For example, similar to LbT in human, we see that: (1) LbT can induce weak-to-strong generalization: strong models can improve themselves by teaching other weak models; (2) Diversity in students might help: teaching multiple students could be better than teaching one student or the teacher itself. We hope that this early promise can inspire future research on LbT and more broadly adopting the advanced techniques in education to improve LLMs. The code is available at https://github.com/imagination-research/lbt.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional coding capability. However, as another critical component of programming proficiency, the debugging capability of LLMs remains relatively unexplored. Previous evaluations of LLMs' debugging ability are significantly limited by the risk of data leakage, the scale of the dataset, and the variety of tested bugs. To overcome these deficiencies, we introduce `DebugBench', an LLM debugging benchmark consisting of 4,253 instances. It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. To construct DebugBench, we collect code snippets from the LeetCode community, implant bugs into source data with GPT-4, and assure rigorous quality checks. We evaluate two commercial and three open-source models in a zero-shot scenario. We find that (1) while closed-source models like GPT-4 exhibit inferior debugging performance compared to humans, open-source models such as Code Llama fail to attain any pass rate scores; (2) the complexity of debugging notably fluctuates depending on the bug category; (3) incorporating runtime feedback has a clear impact on debugging performance which is not always helpful. As an extension, we also compare LLM debugging and code generation, revealing a strong correlation between them for closed-source models. These findings will benefit the development of LLMs in debugging.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code generation tasks, but their performance in tackling programming problems with complex data structures and algorithms remains suboptimal. To address this issue, we propose an in-context learning approach that guides LLMs to debug by using a "print debugging" method, which involves inserting print statements to trace and analysing logs for fixing the bug. We collect a Leetcode problem dataset and evaluate our method using the Leetcode online judging system. Experiments with GPT-4 demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, outperforming rubber duck debugging in easy and medium-level Leetcode problems by 1.5% and 17.9%.

Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing computing education by powering next-generation educational technologies for introductory programming. Recent works have studied these models for different scenarios relevant to programming education; however, these works are limited for several reasons, as they typically consider already outdated models or only specific scenario(s). Consequently, there is a lack of a systematic study that benchmarks state-of-the-art models for a comprehensive set of programming education scenarios. In our work, we systematically evaluate two models, ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) and GPT-4, and compare their performance with human tutors for a variety of scenarios. We evaluate using five introductory Python programming problems and real-world buggy programs from an online platform, and assess performance using expert-based annotations. Our results show that GPT-4 drastically outperforms ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) and comes close to human tutors' performance for several scenarios. These results also highlight settings where GPT-4 still struggles, providing exciting future directions on developing techniques to improve the performance of these models.