Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16017v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:28:33 GMT
• Title: Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models
• Authors: Stephen MacNeil, Paul Denny, Andrew Tran, Juho Leinonen, Seth Bernstein, Arto Hellas, Sami Sarsa and Joanne Kim
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated surprising performance for a range of computing tasks. We investigate the performance of two popular LLMs, GPT-3 and GPT-4, for detecting and providing a novice-friendly explanation of logic errors.
• Score: 5.162225137921625
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Identifying and resolving logic errors can be one of the most frustrating challenges for novices programmers. Unlike syntax errors, for which a compiler or interpreter can issue a message, logic errors can be subtle. In certain conditions, buggy code may even exhibit correct behavior -- in other cases, the issue might be about how a problem statement has been interpreted. Such errors can be hard to spot when reading the code, and they can also at times be missed by automated tests. There is great educational potential in automatically detecting logic errors, especially when paired with suitable feedback for novices. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated surprising performance for a range of computing tasks, including generating and explaining code. These capabilities are closely linked to code syntax, which aligns with the next token prediction behavior of LLMs. On the other hand, logic errors relate to the runtime performance of code and thus may not be as well suited to analysis by LLMs. To explore this, we investigate the performance of two popular LLMs, GPT-3 and GPT-4, for detecting and providing a novice-friendly explanation of logic errors. We compare LLM performance with a large cohort of introductory computing students $(n=964)$ solving the same error detection task. Through a mixed-methods analysis of student and model responses, we observe significant improvement in logic error identification between the previous and current generation of LLMs, and find that both LLM generations significantly outperform students. We outline how such models could be integrated into computing education tools, and discuss their potential for supporting students when learning programming.

Related papers

• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Synthetic Students: A Comparative Study of Bug Distribution Between Large Language Models and Computing Students [4.949067768845775]
  Large language models (LLMs) present an exciting opportunity for generating synthetic classroom data. This research paper examines the distribution of bugs generated by LLMs in contrast to those produced by computing students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T18:51:58Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Bug In the Code Stack: Can LLMs Find Bugs in Large Python Code Stacks [1.3586572110652484]
  This study explores the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in retrieving contextual information from large text documents. Our benchmark, Bug In The Code Stack (BICS), is designed to assess the ability of LLMs to identify simple syntax bugs within large source code. Our findings reveal three key insights: (1) code-based environments pose significantly more challenge compared to text-based environments for retrieval tasks, (2) there is a substantial performance disparity among different models, and (3) there is a notable correlation between longer context lengths and performance degradation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T17:37:10Z)
• Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code? [10.519984835232359]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code generation. It is unclear what kinds of code generation errors LLMs can make. We analyzed incorrect code snippets generated by six popular LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• Improving LLM Classification of Logical Errors by Integrating Error Relationship into Prompts [1.7095867620640115]
  A key aspect of programming education is understanding and dealing with error message. 'logical errors' in which the program operates against the programmer's intentions do not receive error messages from the compiler. We propose an effective approach for detecting logical errors with LLMs that makes use of relations among error types in the Chain-of-Thought and Tree-of-Thought prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T08:03:22Z)
• Language Models can be Logical Solvers [99.40649402395725]
  We introduce LoGiPT, a novel language model that directly emulates the reasoning processes of logical solvers. LoGiPT is fine-tuned on a newly constructed instruction-tuning dataset derived from revealing and refining the invisible reasoning process of deductive solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T16:23:50Z)
• The Consensus Game: Language Model Generation via Equilibrium Search [73.51411916625032]
  We introduce a new, a training-free, game-theoretic procedure for language model decoding. Our approach casts language model decoding as a regularized imperfect-information sequential signaling game. Applying EQUILIBRIUM-RANKING to LLaMA-7B outperforms the much larger LLaMA-65B and PaLM-540B models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T14:27:21Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  We propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for Automated Verilog RTL Code Generation [21.747037230069854]
  We characterize the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate useful Verilog. We construct an evaluation framework comprising test-benches for functional analysis and a flow to test the syntax of Verilog code. Our findings show that across our problem scenarios, the fine-tuning results in LLMs more capable of producing syntactically correct code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T16:34:39Z)

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.