Fight Fire with Fire: How Much Can We Trust ChatGPT on Source Code-Related Tasks?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12641v1
• Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 09:47:33 GMT
• Title: Fight Fire with Fire: How Much Can We Trust ChatGPT on Source Code-Related Tasks?
• Authors: Xiao Yu, Lei Liu, Xing Hu, Jacky Wai Keung, Jin Liu, Xin Xia,
• Abstract summary: Recent studies proposed utilizing ChatGPT as both a developer and tester for collaborative software development. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation to evaluate ChatGPT's self-verification capability in code generation, code completion, and program repair.
• Score: 10.389763758883975
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the increasing utilization of large language models such as ChatGPT during software development, it has become crucial to verify the quality of code content it generates. Recent studies proposed utilizing ChatGPT as both a developer and tester for multi-agent collaborative software development. The multi-agent collaboration empowers ChatGPT to produce test reports for its generated code, enabling it to self-verify the code content and fix bugs based on these reports. However, these studies did not assess the effectiveness of the generated test reports in validating the code. Therefore, we conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation to evaluate ChatGPT's self-verification capability in code generation, code completion, and program repair. We request ChatGPT to (1) generate correct code and then self-verify its correctness; (2) complete code without vulnerabilities and then self-verify for the presence of vulnerabilities; and (3) repair buggy code and then self-verify whether the bugs are resolved. Our findings on two code generation datasets, one code completion dataset, and two program repair datasets reveal the following observations: (1) ChatGPT often erroneously predicts its generated incorrect code as correct. (2) The self-contradictory hallucinations in ChatGPT's behavior arise. (3) The self-verification capability of ChatGPT can be enhanced by asking the guiding question, which queries whether ChatGPT agrees with assertions about incorrectly generated or repaired code and vulnerabilities in completed code. (4) Using test reports generated by ChatGPT can identify more vulnerabilities in completed code, but the explanations for incorrectly generated code and failed repairs are mostly inaccurate in the test reports. Based on these findings, we provide implications for further research or development using ChatGPT.

Related papers

• Investigating the Utility of ChatGPT in the Issue Tracking System: An Exploratory Study [5.176434782905268]
  This study examines the interaction between ChatGPT and developers to analyze their prevalent activities and provide a resolution. Our investigation reveals that developers mainly use ChatGPT for brainstorming solutions but often opt to write their code instead of using ChatGPT-generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T06:03:05Z)
• 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)
• Can ChatGPT support software verification? [0.9668407688201361]
  We ask ChatGPT to annotate 106 C programs with loop invariants. We check validity and usefulness of the generated invariants by passing them to two verifiers, Frama-C and CPAchecker. Our evaluation shows that ChatGPT is able to produce valid and useful invariants allowing Frama-C to verify tasks that it could not solve before.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-04T15:25:18Z)
• 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)
• FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI -- A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios [87.12753459582116]
  A wider range of tasks now face an increasing risk of containing factual errors when handled by generative models. We propose FacTool, a task and domain agnostic framework for detecting factual errors of texts generated by large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T14:20:51Z)
• 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)
• ChatLog: Carefully Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT Across Time [54.18651663847874]
  ChatGPT has achieved great success and can be considered to have acquired an infrastructural status. Existing benchmarks encounter two challenges: (1) Disregard for periodical evaluation and (2) Lack of fine-grained features. We construct ChatLog, an ever-updating dataset with large-scale records of diverse long-form ChatGPT responses for 21 NLP benchmarks from March, 2023 to now.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T11:33:48Z)
• 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)
• ChatGPT is a Knowledgeable but Inexperienced Solver: An Investigation of Commonsense Problem in Large Language Models [49.52083248451775]
  Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in NLP. We specifically focus on ChatGPT, a widely used and easily accessible LLM. We conduct a series of experiments on 11 datasets to evaluate ChatGPT's commonsense abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T03:05:43Z)
• 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)

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.