mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Addressing Data Leakage in HumanEval Using Combinatorial Test Design

arXiv 2412.01526 ↗First posted 2 Dec 2024cs.SE cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The use of large language models (LLMs) is widespread across many domains, including Software Engineering, where they have been used to automate tasks such as program generation and test classification. As LLM-based methods continue to evolve, it is important that we define clear and robust methods that fairly evaluate performance. Benchmarks are a common approach to assess LLMs with respect to their ability to solve problem-specific tasks as well as assess different versions of an LLM to solve tasks over time. For example, the HumanEval benchmark is composed of 164 hand-crafted tasks and has become an important tool in assessing LLM-based program generation. However, a major barrier to a fair evaluation of LLMs using benchmarks like HumanEval is data contamination resulting from data leakage of benchmark tasks and solutions into the training data set. This barrier is compounded by the black-box nature of LLM training data which makes it difficult to even know if data leakage has occurred. To address the data leakage problem, we propose a new benchmark construction method where a benchmark is composed of template tasks that can be instantiated into new concrete tasks using combinatorial test design. Concrete tasks for the same template task must be different enough that data leakage has minimal impact and similar enough that the tasks are interchangeable with respect to performance evaluation. To assess our benchmark construction method, we propose HumanEval_T, an alternative benchmark to HumanEval that was constructed using template tasks and combinatorial test design.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2024.

Builds on

12 of 23 references.

References · 12

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
  3. 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 410
  4. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
  5. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 339
  6. 2023Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheatercited by 194
  7. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
  8. 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
  9. 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymorecited by 98
  10. 2024Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluationcited by 73
  11. 2024Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models by Meta Probing Agentscited by 54
  12. 2024A Software Engineering Perspective on Testing Large Language Models: Research, Practice, Tools and Benchmarkscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.