The Behavior of Large Language Models When Prompted to Generate Code Explanations

This paper systematically investigates the generation of code explanations by Large Language Models (LLMs) for code examples commonly encountered in introductory programming courses. Our findings reveal significant variations in the nature of code explanations produced by LLMs, influenced by factors such as the wording of the prompt, the specific code examples under consideration, the programming language involved, the temperature parameter, and the version of the LLM. However, a consistent pattern emerges for Java and Python, where explanations exhibit a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of approximately 7-8 grade and a consistent lexical density, indicating the proportion of meaningful words relative to the total explanation size. Additionally, the generated explanations consistently achieve high scores for correctness, but lower scores on three other metrics: completeness, conciseness, and specificity

A Comparative Study of Free Self-Explanations and Socratic Tutoring Explanations for Source Code Comprehension

We present in this paper the results of a randomized control trial experiment that compared the effectiveness of two instructional strategies that scaffold learners\u27 code comprehension processes: Eliciting Free Self-Explanation and a Socratic Method. Code comprehension, i.e., understanding source code, is a critical skill for both learners and professionals. Improving learners\u27 code comprehension skills should result in improved learning which in turn should help with retention in intro-to-programming courses which are notorious for suffering from very high attrition rates due to the complexity of programming topics. To this end, the reported experiment is meant to explore the effectiveness of various strategies to elicit self-explanation as a way to improve comprehension and learning during complex code comprehension and learning activities in intro-to-programming courses. The experiment showed pre-/post-test learning gains of 30% (M = 0.30, SD = 0.47) for the Free Self-Explanation condition and learning gains of 59% (M = 0.59,SD = 0.39) for the Socratic method. Furthermore, we investigated the behavior of the two strategies as a function of students\u27 prior knowledge which was measured using learners\u27 pretest score. For the Free Self-Explanation condition, there was no significant difference in mean learning gains for low vs. high knowledge students. The magnitude of the difference in performance (mean difference= 0.02,95% CI:-0.34 to 0.39) was very small (eta squared = 0.006). Likewise, the Socratic method showed no significant difference in mean learning gains between low vs. high performing students. The magnitude of the performance difference (mean difference =-0.24,95% CI:-0.534 to 0.03) was large (eta squared = 0.10). These findings suggest that eliciting self-explanations can be used as an effective strategy and that guided self-explanations as in the Socratic method condition is more effective at inducing learning gains

Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting

Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.Comment: 27 pages, 17 figures + references and appendices, repo: https://github.com/google/BIG-benc