Code LLMs often portray inconsistent program behaviors. Developers typically employ benchmarks to assess Code LLMs, but most benchmarks are hand-crafted, static and do not target the consistency property. In this work, we pose the scientific question: how can we automatically discover inconsistent program behaviors in Code LLMs? To address this challenge, we propose an automated consistency testing method, called MUCOCO, which employs semantic-preserving mutation analysis to expose inconsistent behaviors in code LLMs. Given a coding query, MUCOCO automatically transforms its program into semantically equivalent programs (aka mutants) and detects inconsistencies between the mutants and the original program (e.g., different output or test failure). We evaluate MUCOCO using four (4) coding tasks and seven (7) LLMs. Results show that MUCOCO is effective in exposing inconsistency and outperforms the closest baseline (TURBULENCE). About one in seven (15%) inputs generated by MUCOCO exposed inconsistencies. Our work motivates the need to test Code LLMs for consistency property.

In this work, we systematically expose and measure the inconsistency and knowledge gaps of Large Language Models (LLMs). Specifically, we propose an automated testing framework (called KONTEST) which leverages a knowledge graph to construct test cases. KONTEST probes and measures the inconsistencies in the LLM’s knowledge of the world via a combination of semantically-equivalent queries and test oracles (metamorphic or ontological oracle). KONTEST further mitigates knowledge gaps via a weighted LLM model ensemble. Using four state-of-the-art LLMs (Falcon, Gemini, GPT3.5, and Llama2), we show that KONTEST generates 19.2% error inducing inputs (1917 errors from 9979 test inputs). It also reveals a 16.5% knowledge gap across all tested LLMs. A mitigation method informed by KONTEST’s test suite reduces LLM knowledge gap by 32.48%. Our ablation study further shows that GPT3.5 is not suitable for knowledge-based consistency testing because it is only 60%-68% effective in knowledge construction.