Page Not Found
Page not found. Your pixels are in another canvas.
A list of all the posts and pages found on the site. For you robots out there is an XML version available for digesting as well.
Page not found. Your pixels are in another canvas.
About me
This is a page not in th emain menu
Published:
This post will show up by default. To disable scheduling of future posts, edit config.yml
and set future: false
.
Published:
This is a sample blog post. Lorem ipsum I can’t remember the rest of lorem ipsum and don’t have an internet connection right now. Testing testing testing this blog post. Blog posts are cool.
Published:
This is a sample blog post. Lorem ipsum I can’t remember the rest of lorem ipsum and don’t have an internet connection right now. Testing testing testing this blog post. Blog posts are cool.
Published:
This is a sample blog post. Lorem ipsum I can’t remember the rest of lorem ipsum and don’t have an internet connection right now. Testing testing testing this blog post. Blog posts are cool.
Published:
This is a sample blog post. Lorem ipsum I can’t remember the rest of lorem ipsum and don’t have an internet connection right now. Testing testing testing this blog post. Blog posts are cool.
Short description of portfolio item number 1
Short description of portfolio item number 2
Published in ICSME, 2023
One of the most common solutions adopted by software researchers to address code generation is by training Large Language Models (LLMs) on massive amounts of source code. Although a number of studies have shown that LLMs have been effectively evaluated on popular accuracy metrics (e.g., BLEU, CodeBleu), previous research has largely overlooked the role of Causal Inference as a fundamental component of the interpretability of LLMs’ performance. Existing benchmarks and datasets are meant to highlight the difference between the expected and the generated outcome, but do not take into account confounding variables (e.g., lines of code, prompt size) that equally influence the accuracy metrics. The fact remains that, when dealing with generative software tasks by LLMs, no benchmark is available to tell researchers how to quantify neither the causal effect of SE-based treatments nor the correlation of confounders to the model’s performance. In an effort to bring statistical rigor to the evaluation of LLMs, this paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks (i.e., code completion, code summarization, and commit generation) to help aid the interpretation of LLMs’ performance. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods. The results of the case study demonstrate the positive causal influence of prompt semantics on ChatGPT’s generative performance by an average treatment effect of ≈3%. Moreover, it was found that confounders such as prompt size are highly correlated with accuracy metrics (≈0.412%). The end result of our case study is to showcase causal inference evaluations, in practice, to reduce confounding bias. By reducing the bias, we offer an interpretable solution for the accuracy metric under analysis.
Download here
Published in In revew at TOSEM, 2024
Trustworthiness and interpretability are inextricably linked concepts for LLMs. The more interpretable an LLM is, the more trustworthy it becomes. However, current techniques for interpreting LLMs when applied to coderelated tasks largely focus on accuracy measurements, measures of how models react to change, or individual task performance instead of the fine-grained explanations needed at prediction time for greater interpretability, and hence trust. To improve upon this status quo, this paper introduces ASTrust, an interpretability method for LLMs of code that generates explanations grounded in the relationship between model confidence and syntactic structures of programming languages. ASTrust explains generated code in the context of syntax categories based on Abstract Syntax Trees and aids practitioners in understanding model predictions at both local (individual code snippets) and global (larger datasets of code) levels. By distributing and assigning model confidence scores to well-known syntactic structures that exist within ASTs, our approach moves beyond prior techniques that perform token-level confidence mapping by offering a view of model confidence that directly aligns with programming language concepts with which developers are familiar. To put ASTrust into practice, we developed an automated visualization that illustrates the aggregated model confidence scores superimposed on sequence, heat-map, and graph-based visuals of syntactic structures from ASTs. We examine both the practical benefit that ASTrust can provide through a data science study on 12 popular LLMs on a curated set of GitHub repos and the usefulness of ASTrust through a human study. Our findings illustrate that there is a causal connection between learning error and an LLM’s ability to predict different syntax categories according to ASTrust – illustrating that our approach can be used to interpret model effectiveness in the context of its syntactic categories. Finally, users generally found ASTrust’s visualizations useful in understanding the trustworthiness of model predictions.
Download here
Published:
This is a description of your talk, which is a markdown files that can be all markdown-ified like any other post. Yay markdown!
Published:
This is a description of your conference proceedings talk, note the different field in type. You can put anything in this field.
Undergraduate course, University 1, Department, 2014
This is a description of a teaching experience. You can use markdown like any other post.
Workshop, University 1, Department, 2015
This is a description of a teaching experience. You can use markdown like any other post.