A Deep Dive Into Large Language Model Code Generation Mistakes: What and Why?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01414v1
• Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 02:47:03 GMT
• Title: A Deep Dive Into Large Language Model Code Generation Mistakes: What and Why?
• Authors: QiHong Chen, Jiawei Li, Jiecheng Deng, Jiachen Yu, Justin Tian Jin Chen, Iftekhar Ahmed,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 9.246899995643918
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their widespread application in automated code generation. However, these models can still generate defective code that deviates from the specification. Previous research has mainly focused on the mistakes in LLM-generated standalone functions, overlooking real-world software development situations where the successful generation of the code requires software contexts such as external dependencies. In this paper, we considered both of these code generation situations and identified a range of \textit{non-syntactic mistakes} arising from LLMs' misunderstandings of coding question specifications. Seven categories of non-syntactic mistakes were identified through extensive manual analyses, four of which were missed by previous works. To better understand these mistakes, we proposed six reasons behind these mistakes from various perspectives. Moreover, we explored the effectiveness of LLMs in detecting mistakes and their reasons. 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, such as misleading function signatures. We believe that these findings offer valuable insights into enhancing the quality of LLM-generated code.

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)
• Insights from Benchmarking Frontier Language Models on Web App Code Generation [1.7268889851975326]
  This paper presents insights from evaluating 16 frontier large language models (LLMs) on the WebApp1K benchmark. The results reveal that while all models possess similar underlying knowledge, their performance is differentiated by the frequency of mistakes they make.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-08T18:24:26Z)
• Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models [0.669087470775851]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T21:10:09Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Where Do Large Language Models Fail When Generating Code? [10.519984835232359]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T01:29:52Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Knowledge-Augmented Language Model Verification [68.6099592486075]
  Recent Language Models (LMs) have shown impressive capabilities in generating texts with the knowledge internalized in parameters. We propose to verify the output and the knowledge of the knowledge-augmented LMs with a separate verifier. Our results show that the proposed verifier effectively identifies retrieval and generation errors, allowing LMs to provide more factually correct outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T15:40:00Z)
• 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.