BCDEFG
1
Which assistant better incorporates user's initial preferences?Which assistant better adapts to changes in preferences?Which method is more precise in terms of iterative refinement? ‘Precision of modification’ means if the changes are relevant to the request.Which method is more complete in terms of iterative refinement? ‘Completeness of modification’ means if all the necessary changes has been made.Which method seems more suitable for software-level code generation?Why?
2
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1 seems more suitable for software level code generation. Though it is not perfect and makes some sub-optimal decisions (eg: in the scenario where "set_initial_conditions" is not found, the assistant chooses to write a duplicate method of __init__, rather than adopt the code to not need a set_initial_conditions method at all). However, it is able to reach the user's required goal in much lesser steps, and implements most of the user's requested functionality in the first code generation itself. Among all the fields mentioned above, Assistant 1 is clearly better than Assistant 2
3
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1, because the code is more modular, allowing flexible reuse of certain parts.
4
Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2 is more suitable and I would conclude from three levels as mentioned above. 1. Regarding the user's initial preferences, Assistat 2 directly engages with the user’s requests and feedback throughout the interaction. It tightly aligns with user's specifications. 2. Assistant 2 also performs better in the change of user attitude. For example, Assistant 2 handles errors mentioned by the user, providing specific solutions to resolve issues such as library dependencies and code bugs. 3. Assistant 2's modifications are closely relevant to user's specific requests. In contrast, the response from Assistant 1 seems relatively unclear and general. For example, the user said "The simulation does not look like a double pendulum." Assistant 1 seems to first deliver something not directly answering the question, e.g., "... It is crucial that ....". Therefore, in general, Assistant 2 is preferred.
5
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1 is more suitable becomes it provides choices, has a better explanation for the generated code, and is more precise when it modifies the code
6
Assistant 2Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1. From personal experience, using gpt-style assistants for coding tends to cause compiling errors similar to what happens with assistant 2. This is very annoying to debug, so I think it would be preferable for the assistant to provide a simpler solution, even if it had a few problems (the physics seeming synthetic is a problem the coder can solve)
7
Assistant 1Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2Assistant 2The second assistant seems more suitable because it clarifies requirements before providing a response, generates code based on those specific needs, and adjusts code more accurately according to instructions. Additionally, its debugging process is more straightforward, leading to more reliable results.
8
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 2Assistant 1According to me, Assistant 1 seems to be more suitable for software-level code generation. I didn't like it giving me a massive block of choices in the beginning i.e. (A) vs (B).

However, disregarding that, I like the way it sets up the plan or outline of the implementation with sufficient description for each individual component, for someone to understand.

I think a clear strategy might also be the reason for less errors observed and fewer interactions needed. This is important in my view as minor but frequent errors as observed in interactions with Assistant 2 could be a source of frustration to the user.
9
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1.
The big difference between the two methods is at the first step when the user gives the instructions. I think it's better to give choices like Assistant 1 instead of asking users to specify more requirements. According to the process, Assistant 2 shows more errors than Assistant 1 and it sometimes even cannot generate the complete code.
10
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1I found Assistant 1 responses to be much better and higher quality than Assistant 2 primarily because of the precision and completeness of the outputs generated. It was much better at instruction-following and (in my subjective opinion) produced higher quality responses. It might be a bit verbose sometimes, but this can be useful for software-level code generation.
11
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1. It provides more concrete plans and requires less work for users.
12
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 2Assistant 1Assistant 1Overall, Assistant 1 exhibited much better code generation capabilities and better interaction with human users.
----------------------------------------------
I assume you're comparing a reasoning LL-Agent (such as o1-preview) and a classic LL-Model that has no external mechanism to perform agent-like reasoning.
After reviewing the conversation flow and comparing the code differences in an IDE, Assistant 1 obviously has better code completeness and didn't suffer too much from following a single request to complete multiple tasks in the historical conversation.
Whereas Assistant 2 seems to do it in a step-by-step style. It will complete each individual request, but cannot associate the current request with the previous ones. That's why you have to "push" it several times to get a more ideal output.
In terms of code quality, Assitant 1 can provide a well-commented script (instead of code snippets), while Assitant 2 suffered from bugs resulting from newly added modules.
----------------------------------------------
A quick note on the 3rd question: I don't want to choose Ass.2 for better precision, since both assistants are really good at targeting the problem and performing refinement for the bugs/new requests from the user. I choose Ass.2 simply because it cannot finish all requests at once, but in multiple time with good precisions, whereas Ass.1 finishes everything with a single request. I think they are equally good in terms of "precision of modification".
13
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1For software-level code generation, Assistant 1 is better because it has a broader understanding of what the overall code should look like, is more cooperative, and better accounts for the user's preferences. However, for small code snippets or functions, that broader thinking sometimes isn't necessary, making Assistant 2 more efficient as it provides what you need right away instead of prioritizing preferences.
14
Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1 seems more suitable, because it produced functioning code and sufficiently adapted to the user's preferences - namely, the comments and removing unneeded modules. It also gave the user two implementations to choose from, which is convenient. When the user specified new preferences, Assistant 1 produced functioning code that adopted those preferences. Although the code was initially provided in a bare-bones style (without commentary or explanation), Assistant 1 was able to provide comments upon request, which greatly improved my understanding of the code.

The one thing I prefer about Assistant 2 is its initial conversational response, since it walks the user through the steps it is about to take and offers for the user to first specify their preferences, rather than immediately producing a block of code without explanation. However, as seen by the user's error reports, the code it later produced was non-functioning, or some code functionalities were erased when the user asked for new features to be added (such as comments). Additionally, Assistant 2 was more hesitant to fully complete the code on its own, and also expressed some hesitancy in its phrasing (e.g. "creating a fully-functional program is a bit involved, but I'll do it"). This makes Assistant 2 less reliable, and therefore less suitable as a code generation assistant.
15
Assistant 1Assistant 2Assistant 1Assistant 1Assistant 1The approach used by Assistant 1 is more suitable for software-level code generation due to its structured methodology and attention to detail. Assistant 1 creates a straightforward refinement process for complex software modules by utilizing intermediate representations and documenting user preferences. While Assistant 2 is effective for immediate debugging and testing, Assistant 1 supports more comprehensive development. By thoroughly refining each component before moving on, Assistant 1 allows for controlled modifications, making it a stronger choice for software-level code generation.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74