Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08731v2
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:28:46 GMT
• Title: Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code?
• Authors: Zhijie Wang, Zijie Zhou, Da Song, Yuheng Huang, Shengmai Chen, Lei Ma, Tianyi Zhang,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 10.519984835232359
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in code generation. However, current LLMs still cannot reliably generate correct code. Moreover, it is unclear what kinds of code generation errors LLMs can make. To address this, we conducted an empirical study to analyze incorrect code snippets generated by six popular LLMs on the HumanEval dataset. We analyzed these errors alongside two dimensions of error characteristics -- semantic characteristics and syntactic characteristics -- to derive a comprehensive code generation error taxonomy for LLMs through open coding and thematic analysis. We then labeled all 557 incorrect code snippets based on this taxonomy. Our results showed that the six LLMs exhibited similar distributions of syntactic characteristics while different distributions of semantic characteristics. Furthermore, we analyzed the correlation between different error characteristics and factors such as task complexity, code length, and test-pass rate. Finally, we highlight the challenges that LLMs may encounter when generating code and propose implications for future research on reliable code generation with LLMs.

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)
• A Deep Dive Into Large Language Model Code Generation Mistakes: What and Why? [9.246899995643918]
  Large Language Models can still generate defective code that deviates from the specification. Seven categories of non-syntactic mistakes were identified through extensive manual analyses. Our evaluation demonstrated that GPT-4 with the ReAct prompting technique can achieve an F1 score of up to 0.65 when identifying reasons for LLM's mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T02:47:03Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• 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)
• DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning Graph [70.79413606968814]
  We introduce Dynamic Evaluation of LLMs via Adaptive Reasoning Graph Evolvement (DARG) to dynamically extend current benchmarks with controlled complexity and diversity. Specifically, we first extract the reasoning graphs of data points in current benchmarks and then perturb the reasoning graphs to generate novel testing data. Such newly generated test samples can have different levels of complexity while maintaining linguistic diversity similar to the original benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:27:53Z)
• Validating LLM-Generated Programs with Metamorphic Prompt Testing [8.785973653167112]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle. This paper proposes a novel solution called metamorphic prompt testing to address these challenges. Our evaluation on HumanEval shows that metamorphic prompt testing is able to detect 75 percent of the erroneous programs generated by GPT-4, with a false positive rate of 8.6 percent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T00:40:17Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• Perplexed: Understanding When Large Language Models are Confused [3.4208414448496027]
  This paper introduces perplexed, a library for exploring where a language model is perplexed. We conducted a case study focused on Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation using an additional tool we built to help with the analysis of code models called codetokenizer. We found that our studied code LLMs had their worst performance on coding structures where the code was not syntactically correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T22:03:39Z)
• Mutation-based Consistency Testing for Evaluating the Code Understanding Capability of LLMs [5.549095839198671]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in processing both natural and programming languages. We propose a novel method to assess the code understanding performance of LLMs, particularly focusing on subtle differences between code and its descriptions. We apply different types of code mutations, such as operator replacement and statement deletion, to generate inconsistent code-description pairs. We conduct a case study on the two popular LLMs, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, using the state-of-the-art code generation benchmark, HumanEval-X.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T14:27:43Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• Do Large Language Models Pay Similar Attention Like Human Programmers When Generating Code? [10.249771123421432]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) attend to the same parts of a task description as human programmers during code generation. We manually analyzed 211 incorrect code snippets and found five attention patterns that can be used to explain many code generation errors. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T00:57:03Z)

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.