Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Models for Multi-Requirement Software Engineering Tasks

Standard single-turn, static benchmarks fall short in evaluating the nuanced capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on complex tasks such as software engineering. In this work, we propose a novel interactive evaluation framework that assesses LLMs on multi-requirement programming tasks through structured, feedback-driven dialogue. Each task is modeled as a requirement dependency graph, and an ``interviewer'' LLM, aware of the ground-truth solution, provides minimal, targeted hints to an ``interviewee'' model to help correct errors and fulfill target constraints. This dynamic protocol enables fine-grained diagnostic insights into model behavior, uncovering strengths and systematic weaknesses that static benchmarks fail to measure. We build on DevAI, a benchmark of 55 curated programming tasks, by adding ground-truth solutions and evaluating the relevance and utility of interviewer hints through expert annotation. Our results highlight the importance of dynamic evaluation in advancing the development of collaborative code-generating agents.

GLANCE: Global Actions in a Nutshell for Counterfactual Explainability

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as an important tool to understand, debug, and audit complex machine learning models. To offer global counterfactual explainability, state-of-the-art methods construct summaries of local explanations, offering a trade-off among conciseness, counterfactual effectiveness, and counterfactual cost or burden imposed on instances. In this work, we provide a concise formulation of the problem of identifying global counterfactuals and establish principled criteria for comparing solutions, drawing inspiration from Pareto dominance. We introduce innovative algorithms designed to address the challenge of finding global counterfactuals for either the entire input space or specific partitions, employing clustering and decision trees as key components. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive experimental evaluation, considering various instances of the problem and comparing our proposed algorithms with state-of-the-art methods. The results highlight the consistent capability of our algorithms to generate meaningful and interpretable global counterfactual explanations.

Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups

In this work, we present Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups (FACTS), a framework for auditing subgroup fairness through counterfactual explanations. We start with revisiting (and generalizing) existing notions and introducing new, more refined notions of subgroup fairness. We aim to (a) formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse, i.e. receive the desired outcome, either at the micro level, considering members of the subgroup individually, or at the macro level, considering the subgroup as a whole, and (b) introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse. We accompany these notions with an efficient, model-agnostic, highly parameterizable, and explainable framework for evaluating subgroup fairness. We demonstrate the advantages, the wide applicability, and the efficiency of our approach through a thorough experimental evaluation of different benchmark datasets.