# Technical Document Extraction: HumanEval Pass@1 Acc Chart
## 1. Header Information
* **Title:** HumanEval Pass@1 Acc
* **Language:** English
## 2. Chart Metadata
* **Chart Type:** Line Graph with markers.
* **X-Axis Label:** Iterations
* **X-Axis Scale:** 0 to 8 (increments of 1 marked, data points at intervals of 2).
* **Y-Axis Label:** Pass@1
* **Y-Axis Scale:** 50 to 90 (increments of 5).
* **Legend Location:** Top-right corner [approx. x=0.8, y=0.1 relative to chart area].
* **Legend Categories:**
* **LATS:** Represented by a dark blue line with circular markers (●).
* **Reflexion:** Represented by a dark red line with square markers (■).
## 3. Component Isolation & Trend Analysis
### Region: Main Chart Area
The chart compares the performance of two methods, "LATS" and "Reflexion," over a series of 8 iterations.
#### Series 1: LATS (Blue Line)
* **Visual Trend:** The line shows a steep upward slope from iteration 0 to 2, followed by a continued but slightly decelerating upward trend through iteration 8. It consistently maintains a higher accuracy than the Reflexion series after iteration 0.
* **Data Points (Estimated):**
* Iteration 0: ~56.9
* Iteration 2: ~72.5
* Iteration 4: ~78.8
* Iteration 6: ~82.5
* Iteration 8: ~83.8
#### Series 2: Reflexion (Red Line)
* **Visual Trend:** The line shows a steady, linear upward slope. While performance improves with each iteration, the rate of improvement is significantly lower than that of the LATS series.
* **Data Points (Estimated):**
* Iteration 0: ~56.9 (Starting point is identical to LATS)
* Iteration 2: ~59.4
* Iteration 4: ~62.5
* Iteration 6: ~66.2
* Iteration 8: ~68.1
## 4. Data Table Reconstruction
Based on the visual markers in the chart, the following table represents the extracted data:
| Iterations | LATS (Pass@1 Acc) | Reflexion (Pass@1 Acc) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 0 | ~56.9 | ~56.9 |
| 2 | ~72.5 | ~59.4 |
| 4 | ~78.8 | ~62.5 |
| 6 | ~82.5 | ~66.2 |
| 8 | ~83.8 | ~68.1 |
## 5. Key Findings and Observations
* **Baseline:** Both methods start at the same performance level (approximately 56.9%) at Iteration 0.
* **Performance Gap:** By Iteration 8, LATS outperforms Reflexion by approximately 15.7 percentage points.
* **Efficiency:** LATS achieves a higher accuracy at Iteration 2 (~72.5%) than Reflexion achieves at Iteration 8 (~68.1%), suggesting LATS is significantly more iteration-efficient for the HumanEval task.
