Towards Understanding the Characteristics of Code Generation Errors Made by Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08731v3
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:25:14 GMT
• Title: Towards Understanding the Characteristics of Code Generation Errors Made by Large Language Models
• Authors: Zhijie Wang, Zijie Zhou, Da Song, Yuheng Huang, Shengmai Chen, Lei Ma, Tianyi Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capabilities in code generation.<n>We conducted an in-depth analysis of code generation errors across six representative LLMs on the HumanEval dataset.<n>Our findings highlighted several challenges in locating and fixing code generation errors made by LLMs.
• Score: 10.519984835232359
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capabilities in code generation. However, there remains a limited understanding of code generation errors that LLMs can produce. To bridge the gap, we conducted an in-depth analysis of code generation errors across six representative LLMs on the HumanEval dataset. Specifically, we first employed open coding and thematic analysis to distill a comprehensive taxonomy of code generation errors. We analyzed two dimensions of error characteristics -- semantic characteristics and syntactic characteristics. Our analysis revealed that LLMs often made non-trivial, multi-line code generation errors in various locations and with various root causes. We further analyzed the correlation between these errors and task complexity as well as test pass rate. Our findings highlighted several challenges in locating and fixing code generation errors made by LLMs. In the end, we discussed several future directions to address these challenges.

Related papers

• Error Classification of Large Language Models on Math Word Problems: A Dynamically Adaptive Framework [64.83955753606443]
  Math Word Problems serve as a crucial benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' reasoning abilities. Current error classification methods rely on static and predefined categories. We introduce MWPES-300K, a comprehensive dataset containing 304,865 error samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:17:57Z)
• What You See Is Not Always What You Get: An Empirical Study of Code Comprehension by Large Language Models [0.5735035463793009]
  We investigate the vulnerability of large language models (LLMs) to imperceptible attacks, where hidden character manipulation in source code misleads LLMs' behaviour while remaining undetectable to human reviewers. These attacks include coding reordering, invisible coding characters, code deletions, and code homoglyphs. Our findings confirm the susceptibility of LLMs to imperceptible coding character attacks, while different LLMs present different negative correlations between perturbation magnitude and performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T04:52:41Z)
• 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)
• AlchemistCoder: Harmonizing and Eliciting Code Capability by Hindsight Tuning on Multi-source Data [64.69872638349922]
  We present AlchemistCoder, a series of Code LLMs with enhanced code generation and generalization capabilities fine-tuned on multi-source data. We propose incorporating the data construction process into the fine-tuning data as code comprehension tasks, including instruction evolution, data filtering, and code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T16:57:33Z)
• 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)
• Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models [5.162225137921625]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T17:28:33Z)
• Evaluating, Understanding, and Improving Constrained Text Generation for Large Language Models [49.74036826946397]
  This study investigates constrained text generation for large language models (LLMs) Our research mainly focuses on mainstream open-source LLMs, categorizing constraints into lexical, structural, and relation-based types. Results illuminate LLMs' capacity and deficiency to incorporate constraints and provide insights for future developments in constrained text generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T03:58:49Z)
• 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.