Automatic Code Summarization via ChatGPT: How Far Are We?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12865v1
• Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 09:43:40 GMT
• Title: Automatic Code Summarization via ChatGPT: How Far Are We?
• Authors: Weisong Sun, Chunrong Fang, Yudu You, Yun Miao, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Gelei Deng, Shenghan Huang, Yuchen Chen, Quanjun Zhang, Hanwei Qian, Yang Liu, Zhenyu Chen
• Abstract summary: We evaluate ChatGPT on a widely-used Python dataset called CSN-Python. In terms of BLEU and ROUGE-L, ChatGPT's code summarization performance is significantly worse than all three SOTA models. Based on the findings, we outline several open challenges and opportunities in ChatGPT-based code summarization.
• Score: 10.692654700225411
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: To support software developers in understanding and maintaining programs, various automatic code summarization techniques have been proposed to generate a concise natural language comment for a given code snippet. Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has led to a great boost in the performance of natural language processing tasks. Among them, ChatGPT is the most popular one which has attracted wide attention from the software engineering community. However, it still remains unclear how ChatGPT performs in (automatic) code summarization. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on evaluating ChatGPT on a widely-used Python dataset called CSN-Python and comparing it with several state-of-the-art (SOTA) code summarization models. Specifically, we first explore an appropriate prompt to guide ChatGPT to generate in-distribution comments. Then, we use such a prompt to ask ChatGPT to generate comments for all code snippets in the CSN-Python test set. We adopt three widely-used metrics (including BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE-L) to measure the quality of the comments generated by ChatGPT and SOTA models (including NCS, CodeBERT, and CodeT5). The experimental results show that in terms of BLEU and ROUGE-L, ChatGPT's code summarization performance is significantly worse than all three SOTA models. We also present some cases and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT in code summarization. Based on the findings, we outline several open challenges and opportunities in ChatGPT-based code summarization.

Related papers

• Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
  We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples. One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports. Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z)
• Chatbots Are Not Reliable Text Annotators [0.0]
  ChatGPT is a closed-source product which has major drawbacks with regards to transparency, cost, and data protection. Recent advances in open-source (OS) large language models (LLMs) offer alternatives which remedy these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T22:28:14Z)
• Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT in Automated Code Refinement: An Empirical Study [0.0]
  ChatGPT, a cutting-edge language model, has demonstrated impressive performance in various natural language processing tasks. We conduct the first empirical study to understand the capabilities of ChatGPT in code review tasks. Our results show that ChatGPT achieves higher EM and BLEU scores of 22.78 and 76.44 respectively, while the state-of-the-art method achieves only 15.50 and 62.88 on a high-quality code review dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T07:41:33Z)
• Unmasking the giant: A comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's proficiency in coding algorithms and data structures [0.6990493129893112]
  We evaluate ChatGPT's ability to generate correct solutions to the problems fed to it, its code quality, and nature of run-time errors thrown by its code. We look into patterns in the test cases passed in order to gain some insights into how wrong ChatGPT code is in these kinds of situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T08:20:34Z)
• Is ChatGPT the Ultimate Programming Assistant -- How far is it? [11.943927095071105]
  ChatGPT has received great attention: it can be used as a bot for discussing source code. We present an empirical study of ChatGPT's potential as a fully automated programming assistant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T09:20:13Z)
• ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learning [70.57126720079971]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as the most important breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) This paper evaluates ChatGPT on 7 different tasks, covering 37 diverse languages with high, medium, low, and extremely low resources. Compared to the performance of previous models, our extensive experimental results demonstrate a worse performance of ChatGPT for different NLP tasks and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-12T05:08:52Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
  We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity [79.12003701981092]
  We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T12:35:34Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.