Update dataset fact sheet with data skew
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ GitGoodBench Lite is a subset of 120 samples for evaluating the performance of A
|
|
| 11 |
The samples in the dataset are evenly split across the programming languages Python, Java and Kotlin and the sample types merge conflict resolution and file-commit gram.
|
| 12 |
This dataset thus contains 20 samples per sample type and programming language.
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-
All data in this dataset are collected from open-source repositories
|
| 15 |
that have >= 1000 stars, >= 5 branches, >= 10 contributors and are not a fork or archived. We collected the initial list of repositories using [SEART.](https://seart-ghs.si.usi.ch/)
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Evaluation is to be performed by exact-match (EM) of diffs for the merge conflict setting and by LLM-as-a-Judge for the file-commit gram setting. [For further details see our paper.]()
|
|
@@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ File-commit chain scenarios consist of two commits, the oldest and newest commit
|
|
| 43 |
In total the chain consists of `times_seen_consecutively` commits. The intended use-cases of these scenarios are to evaluate the agent's capacity to create meaningful, cohesive commits or
|
| 44 |
improve the local tree via rebasing. Thus samples of this `sample_type` cover two scenario types.
|
| 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 46 |
A `file_commit_chain` scenario looks as follows:
|
| 47 |
```
|
| 48 |
{
|
|
@@ -83,6 +85,35 @@ The following table provides per-field details. Columns marked “Yes” under *
|
|
| 83 |
# Dataset statistics
|
| 84 |
We provide some statistics on the distribution of “difficulty” within the overall dataset and across different scenario types.
|
| 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 86 |
## Overall Difficulty Distribution
|
| 87 |
| Difficulty | Fraction |
|
| 88 |
|------------|----------|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
The samples in the dataset are evenly split across the programming languages Python, Java and Kotlin and the sample types merge conflict resolution and file-commit gram.
|
| 12 |
This dataset thus contains 20 samples per sample type and programming language.
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
+
All data in this dataset are collected from 105 unique, open-source GitHub repositories with permissive licenses
|
| 15 |
that have >= 1000 stars, >= 5 branches, >= 10 contributors and are not a fork or archived. We collected the initial list of repositories using [SEART.](https://seart-ghs.si.usi.ch/)
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Evaluation is to be performed by exact-match (EM) of diffs for the merge conflict setting and by LLM-as-a-Judge for the file-commit gram setting. [For further details see our paper.]()
|
|
|
|
| 43 |
In total the chain consists of `times_seen_consecutively` commits. The intended use-cases of these scenarios are to evaluate the agent's capacity to create meaningful, cohesive commits or
|
| 44 |
improve the local tree via rebasing. Thus samples of this `sample_type` cover two scenario types.
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
+
File-commit chains are at least 3 commits long, all commits only contain files in the specified programming_language and no commit is a merge commit.
|
| 47 |
+
|
| 48 |
A `file_commit_chain` scenario looks as follows:
|
| 49 |
```
|
| 50 |
{
|
|
|
|
| 85 |
# Dataset statistics
|
| 86 |
We provide some statistics on the distribution of “difficulty” within the overall dataset and across different scenario types.
|
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
+
## Dataset Skew
|
| 89 |
+
|
| 90 |
+
We note that our dataset is skewed towards the top three repositories especially, however skew flattens quickly.
|
| 91 |
+
|
| 92 |
+
### Distribution Statistics
|
| 93 |
+
- Total number of repositories (count): 105
|
| 94 |
+
- Average (mean) samples per repository: 1.14
|
| 95 |
+
- Standard deviation (std): 0.67
|
| 96 |
+
- Minimum (min): 1
|
| 97 |
+
- 25th percentile (25%): 1
|
| 98 |
+
- Median (50%): 1
|
| 99 |
+
- 75th percentile (75%): 1
|
| 100 |
+
- Maximum (max): 7
|
| 101 |
+
|
| 102 |
+
### Top-10 Repositories by Sample Count
|
| 103 |
+
|
| 104 |
+
| Repository | Percentage of Total Samples |
|
| 105 |
+
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------:|
|
| 106 |
+
| oss-review-toolkit/ort | 5.83% |
|
| 107 |
+
| stripe/stripe-android | 2.50% |
|
| 108 |
+
| element-hq/element-android | 2.50% |
|
| 109 |
+
| tlaplus/tlaplus | 1.67% |
|
| 110 |
+
| apache/hive | 1.67% |
|
| 111 |
+
| wikimedia/apps-android-wikipedia | 1.67% |
|
| 112 |
+
| chrisbanes/tivi | 1.67% |
|
| 113 |
+
| liquibase/liquibase | 1.67% |
|
| 114 |
+
| spring-projects/spring-data-mongodb | 0.83% |
|
| 115 |
+
| mpv-android/mpv-android | 0.83% |
|
| 116 |
+
|
| 117 |
## Overall Difficulty Distribution
|
| 118 |
| Difficulty | Fraction |
|
| 119 |
|------------|----------|
|