Not the Silver Bullet: LLM-enhanced Programming Error Messages are Ineffective in Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18661v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:45:56 GMT
• Title: Not the Silver Bullet: LLM-enhanced Programming Error Messages are Ineffective in Practice
• Authors: Eddie Antonio Santos, Brett A. Becker,
• Abstract summary: We show that GPT-4 generated error messages outperformed conventional compiler error messages in only 1 of the 6 tasks. Despite promising evidence on synthetic benchmarks, we found that GPT-4 generated error messages outperformed conventional compiler error messages in only 1 of the 6 tasks.
• Score: 1.106787864231365
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The sudden emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has had a disruptive impact throughout the computing education community. LLMs have been shown to excel at producing correct code to CS1 and CS2 problems, and can even act as friendly assistants to students learning how to code. Recent work shows that LLMs demonstrate unequivocally superior results in being able to explain and resolve compiler error messages -- for decades, one of the most frustrating parts of learning how to code. However, LLM-generated error message explanations have only been assessed by expert programmers in artificial conditions. This work sought to understand how novice programmers resolve programming error messages (PEMs) in a more realistic scenario. We ran a within-subjects study with $n$ = 106 participants in which students were tasked to fix six buggy C programs. For each program, participants were randomly assigned to fix the problem using either a stock compiler error message, an expert-handwritten error message, or an error message explanation generated by GPT-4. Despite promising evidence on synthetic benchmarks, we found that GPT-4 generated error messages outperformed conventional compiler error messages in only 1 of the 6 tasks, measured by students' time-to-fix each problem. Handwritten explanations still outperform LLM and conventional error messages, both on objective and subjective measures.

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)
• Substance Beats Style: Why Beginning Students Fail to Code with LLMs [3.4817709155395327]
  Existing work shows that beginners struggle to prompt LLMs to solve text-to-code tasks. This paper explores two competing hypotheses about the cause of student-LLM miscommunication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T20:36:30Z)
• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• MEIC: Re-thinking RTL Debug Automation using LLMs [18.964523115622928]
  This work introduces a novel framework, Make Each Iteration Count (MEIC) MEIC is suitable for identifying and correcting both syntax and function errors. To evaluate our framework, we provide an open-source dataset comprising 178 common RTL programming errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T22:32:39Z)
• 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)
• Achieving >97% on GSM8K: Deeply Understanding the Problems Makes LLMs Better Solvers for Math Word Problems [50.76385564061713]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has enhanced the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various reasoning tasks. CoT usually suffers from three pitfalls: semantic misunderstanding errors, calculation errors, and step-missing errors. We propose Deeply Understanding the Problems (DUP) to improve the LLMs' math problem-solving ability by addressing semantic misunderstanding errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T12:16:05Z)
• A Novel Approach for Automatic Program Repair using Round-Trip Translation with Large Language Models [50.86686630756207]
  Research shows that grammatical mistakes in a sentence can be corrected by translating it to another language and back. Current generative models for Automatic Program Repair (APR) are pre-trained on source code and fine-tuned for repair. This paper proposes bypassing the fine-tuning step and using Round-Trip Translation (RTT): translation of code from one programming language to another programming or natural language, and back.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T22:36:31Z)
• 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)
• Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner [106.48571828587728]
  Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. This work explores whether LLMs can LEarn from MistAkes (LEMA), akin to the human learning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T17:52:22Z)
• Dcc --help: Generating Context-Aware Compiler Error Explanations with Large Language Models [53.04357141450459]
  dcc --help was deployed to our CS1 and CS2 courses, with 2,565 students using the tool over 64,000 times in ten weeks. We found that the LLM-generated explanations were conceptually accurate in 90% of compile-time and 75% of run-time cases, but often disregarded the instruction not to provide solutions in code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T02:36:19Z)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)

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.