Related papers: Assessing the Promise and Pitfalls of ChatGPT for Automated Code Generation

Assessing the Promise and Pitfalls of ChatGPT for Automated Code Generation

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02640v1
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 12:56:40 GMT
Title: Assessing the Promise and Pitfalls of ChatGPT for Automated Code Generation
Authors: Muhammad Fawad Akbar Khan, Max Ramsdell, Erik Falor, Hamid Karimi
Abstract summary: This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the code generation capabilities of ChatGPT, a prominent large language model. A dataset of 131 code-generation prompts across 5 categories was curated to enable robust analysis. Code solutions were generated by both ChatGPT and humans for all prompts, resulting in 262 code samples.
Score: 2.0400340435492272
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the code generation capabilities of ChatGPT, a prominent large language model, compared to human programmers. A novel dataset of 131 code-generation prompts across 5 categories was curated to enable robust analysis. Code solutions were generated by both ChatGPT and humans for all prompts, resulting in 262 code samples. A meticulous manual assessment methodology prioritized evaluating correctness, comprehensibility, and security using 14 established code quality metrics. The key findings reveal ChatGPT's strengths in crafting concise, efficient code with advanced constructs, showcasing strengths in data analysis tasks (93.1% accuracy) but limitations in visual-graphical challenges. Comparative analysis with human code highlights ChatGPT's inclination towards modular design and superior error handling. Additionally, machine learning models effectively distinguished ChatGPT from human code with up to 88% accuracy, suggesting detectable coding style disparities. By providing profound insights into ChatGPT's code generation capabilities and limitations through quantitative metrics and qualitative analysis, this study makes valuable contributions toward advancing AI-based programming assistants. The curated dataset and methodology offer a robust foundation for future research in this nascent domain. All data and codes are available on https://github.com/DSAatUSU/ChatGPT-promises-and-pitfalls.

Related papers

Distinguishing LLM-generated from Human-written Code by Contrastive Learning [5.553326595990857]
Large language models (LLMs) have attracted significant attention due to their demonstrated ability to generate high-quality content for various tasks. There are growing concerns regarding their potential risks in various fields, such as news, education, and software engineering. This paper proposes a novel ChatGPT-generated code detector, CodeGPTSensor, based on a contrastive learning framework and a semantic encoder built with UniXcoder.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-07T13:39:14Z)
You Augment Me: Exploring ChatGPT-based Data Augmentation for Semantic Code Search [47.54163552754051]
Code search plays a crucial role in software development, enabling developers to retrieve and reuse code using natural language queries. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in both natural and programming language understanding and generation. We propose a novel approach ChatDANCE, which utilizes high-quality and diverse augmented data generated by a large language model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-10T12:51:21Z)
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)
Refining ChatGPT-Generated Code: Characterizing and Mitigating Code Quality Issues [17.7880460531813]
We systematically study the quality of 4,066 ChatGPT-generated code implemented in two popular programming languages. We identify and characterize potential issues with the quality of ChatGPT-generated code. We find that ChatGPT can partially address these challenges, improving code quality by more than 20%, but there are still limitations and opportunities for improvement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-24T08:14:22Z)
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)
Discriminating Human-authored from ChatGPT-Generated Code Via Discernable Feature Analysis [2.9398911304923447]
This paper specifically aims to distinguish code generated by ChatGPT from that authored by humans. We devise a dataset cleansing technique, which employs temporal and spatial segmentation, to mitigate the dearth of datasets. To further enrich data resources, we employ "code transformation," "feature transformation," and "feature customization" techniques, generating an extensive dataset comprising 10,000 lines of ChatGPT-generated code.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-26T03:15:06Z)
To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
Does Synthetic Data Generation of LLMs Help Clinical Text Mining? [51.205078179427645]
We investigate the potential of OpenAI's ChatGPT to aid in clinical text mining. We propose a new training paradigm that involves generating a vast quantity of high-quality synthetic data. Our method has resulted in significant improvements in the performance of downstream tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-08T03:56:31Z)
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)
CodeExp: Explanatory Code Document Generation [94.43677536210465]
Existing code-to-text generation models produce only high-level summaries of code. We conduct a human study to identify the criteria for high-quality explanatory docstring for code. We present a multi-stage fine-tuning strategy and baseline models for the task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-25T18:05:44Z)
TextFlint: Unified Multilingual Robustness Evaluation Toolkit for Natural Language Processing [73.16475763422446]
We propose a multilingual robustness evaluation platform for NLP tasks (TextFlint) It incorporates universal text transformation, task-specific transformation, adversarial attack, subpopulation, and their combinations to provide comprehensive robustness analysis. TextFlint generates complete analytical reports as well as targeted augmented data to address the shortcomings of the model's robustness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-21T17:20:38Z)

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