Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13372v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:10:09 GMT
• Title: Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models
• Authors: Ali Mohammadi Esfahani, Nafiseh Kahani, Samuel A. Ajila,
• Abstract summary: This study categorizes and analyzes 367 identified defects from code snippets generated by Large Language Models. Error categories indicate key areas where LLMs frequently fail, underscoring the need for targeted improvements. This paper implemented five prompt engineering techniques, including Scratchpad Prompting, Program of Thoughts Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, and Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting.
• Score: 0.669087470775851
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study investigates the reliability of code generation by Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on identifying and analyzing defects in the generated code. Despite the advanced capabilities of LLMs in automating code generation, ensuring the accuracy and functionality of the output remains a significant challenge. By using a structured defect classification method to understand their nature and origins this study categorizes and analyzes 367 identified defects from code snippets generated by LLMs, with a significant proportion being functionality and algorithm errors. These error categories indicate key areas where LLMs frequently fail, underscoring the need for targeted improvements. To enhance the accuracy of code generation, this paper implemented five prompt engineering techniques, including Scratchpad Prompting, Program of Thoughts Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, Chain of Code Prompting, and Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting. These techniques were applied to refine the input prompts, aiming to reduce ambiguities and improve the models' accuracy rate. The research findings suggest that precise and structured prompting significantly mitigates common defects, thereby increasing the reliability of LLM-generated code.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Chain of Targeted Verification Questions to Improve the Reliability of Code Generated by LLMs [10.510325069289324]
  We propose a self-refinement method aimed at improving the reliability of code generated by LLMs. Our approach is based on targeted Verification Questions (VQs) to identify potential bugs within the initial code. Our method attempts to repair these potential bugs by re-prompting the LLM with the targeted VQs and the initial code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T19:02:50Z)
• CodeIP: A Grammar-Guided Multi-Bit Watermark for Large Language Models of Code [56.019447113206006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in code generation. CodeIP is a novel multi-bit watermarking technique that embeds additional information to preserve provenance details. Experiments conducted on a real-world dataset across five programming languages demonstrate the effectiveness of CodeIP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T04:25:04Z)
• StepCoder: Improve Code Generation with Reinforcement Learning from Compiler Feedback [58.20547418182074]
  We introduce StepCoder, a novel framework for code generation, consisting of two main components. CCCS addresses the exploration challenge by breaking the long sequences code generation task into a Curriculum of Code Completion Subtasks. FGO only optimize the model by masking the unexecuted code segments to provide Fine-Grained Optimization. Our method improves the ability to explore the output space and outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in corresponding benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T13:14:31Z)
• Benchmarking and Explaining Large Language Model-based Code Generation: A Causality-Centric Approach [12.214585409361126]
  Large language models (LLMs)- based code generation is a complex and powerful black-box model. We propose a novel causal graph-based representation of the prompt and the generated code. We illustrate the insights that our framework can provide by studying over 3 popular LLMs with over 12 prompt adjustment strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T14:56:26Z)
• Test-Case-Driven Programming Understanding in Large Language Models for Better Code Generation [15.166827643436346]
  muFiX is a novel prompting technique to improve the code generation performance of large language models (LLMs) It first exploits test case analysis to obtain specification understanding and enables a self-improvement process. muFiX further fixes the specification understanding towards the direction reducing the gap between the provided understanding and the actual understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T02:58:07Z)
• Contrastive Decoding Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [55.16503283583076]
  We show that Contrastive Decoding achieves large out-of-the-box improvements over greedy decoding on a variety of reasoning tasks. We show that Contrastive Decoding leads LLaMA-65B to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM 2-L on the HellaSwag commonsense reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-17T00:29:32Z)

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.