Assessing LLM code generation quality through path planning tasks

As LLM-generated code grows in popularity, more evaluation is needed to assess the risks of using such tools, especially for safety-critical applications such as path planning. Existing coding benchmarks are insufficient as they do not reflect the context and complexity of safety-critical applications. To this end, we assessed six LLMs' abilities to generate the code for three different path-planning algorithms and tested them on three maps of various difficulties. Our results suggest that LLM-generated code presents serious hazards for path planning applications and should not be applied in safety-critical contexts without rigorous testing.

Can LLMs plan paths in the real world?

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate into vehicle navigation systems, understanding their path-planning capability is crucial. We tested three LLMs through six real-world path-planning scenarios in various settings and with various difficulties. Our experiments showed that all LLMs made numerous errors in all scenarios, revealing that they are unreliable path planners. We suggest that future work focus on implementing mechanisms for reality checks, enhancing model transparency, and developing smaller models.

Subjectivity in Unsupervised Machine Learning Model Selection

Model selection is a necessary step in unsupervised machine learning. Despite numerous criteria and metrics, model selection remains subjective. A high degree of subjectivity may lead to questions about repeatability and reproducibility of various machine learning studies and doubts about the robustness of models deployed in the real world. Yet, the impact of modelers' preferences on model selection outcomes remains largely unexplored. This study uses the Hidden Markov Model as an example to investigate the subjectivity involved in model selection. We asked 33 participants and three Large Language Models (LLMs) to make model selections in three scenarios. Results revealed variability and inconsistencies in both the participants' and the LLMs' choices, especially when different criteria and metrics disagree. Sources of subjectivity include varying opinions on the importance of different criteria and metrics, differing views on how parsimonious a model should be, and how the size of a dataset should influence model selection. The results underscore the importance of developing a more standardized way to document subjective choices made in model selection processes.