WildCode: An Empirical Analysis of Code Generated by ChatGPT

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04259v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:54:24 GMT
• Title: WildCode: An Empirical Analysis of Code Generated by ChatGPT
• Authors: Kobra Khanmohammadi, Pooria Roy, Raphael Khoury, Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj, Wilfried Patrick Konan,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate code generated by ChatGPT both with respect to correctness and security.<n>We find that users exhibit little curiosity about the security features of the code they ask LLMs to generate.
• Score: 3.2024225749499227
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: LLM models are increasingly used to generate code, but the quality and security of this code are often uncertain. Several recent studies have raised alarm bells, indicating that such AI-generated code may be particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks. However, most of these studies rely on code that is generated specifically for the study, which raises questions about the realism of such experiments. In this study, we perform a large-scale empirical analysis of real-life code generated by ChatGPT. We evaluate code generated by ChatGPT both with respect to correctness and security and delve into the intentions of users who request code from the model. Our research confirms previous studies that used synthetic queries and yielded evidence that LLM-generated code is often inadequate with respect to security. We also find that users exhibit little curiosity about the security features of the code they ask LLMs to generate, as evidenced by their lack of queries on this topic.

Related papers

• LLM-CSEC: Empirical Evaluation of Security in C/C++ Code Generated by Large Language Models [3.82562358840301]
  This work focuses on examining and evaluating the security of large language models (LLMs)<n>We used ten different LLMs for code generation and analyzed the outputs through static analysis.<n>The amount of Common Weaknession (CWE)s present in AI-generated code is concerning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T10:31:53Z)
• A Causal Perspective on Measuring, Explaining and Mitigating Smells in LLM-Generated Code [49.09545217453401]
  Propensity Smelly Score (PSC) is a metric that estimates the likelihood of generating particular smell types.<n>We identify how generation strategy, model size, model architecture and prompt formulation shape the structural properties of generated code.<n> PSC helps developers interpret model behavior and assess code quality, providing evidence that smell propensity signals can support human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T19:18:28Z)
• A.S.E: A Repository-Level Benchmark for Evaluating Security in AI-Generated Code [49.009041488527544]
  A.S.E is a repository-level evaluation benchmark for assessing the security of AI-generated code.<n>Current large language models (LLMs) still struggle with secure coding.<n>A larger reasoning budget does not necessarily lead to better code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T15:11:11Z)
• CodeRAG: Supportive Code Retrieval on Bigraph for Real-World Code Generation [69.684886175768]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in automated code generation.<n>In this paper, we propose CodeRAG, a retrieval-augmented code generation framework.<n> Experiments show that CodeRAG achieves significant improvements compared to no RAG scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T09:51:23Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of LLM Secure Code Generation [19.82291066720634]
  Previous research primarily relies on a single static analyzer, CodeQL, to detect vulnerabilities in generated code.<n>We apply both security inspection and functionality validation to the same generated code and evaluate these two aspects together.<n>Our study reveals that existing techniques often compromise the functionality of generated code to enhance security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T20:12:50Z)
• Helping LLMs Improve Code Generation Using Feedback from Testing and Static Analysis [3.892345568697058]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence.<n>Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues.<n>Previous work highlighted how code generated by commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:34:14Z)
• Artificial-Intelligence Generated Code Considered Harmful: A Road Map for Secure and High-Quality Code Generation [2.793781561647737]
  We compared the security and quality of human-written code with that of LLM-generated code. We found that LLM can generate incorrect code that fails to implement the required functionality. Flukeing has revealed that LLM-generated code is more prone to hangs and crashes than human-written code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T23:41:51Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• Can We Trust Large Language Models Generated Code? A Framework for In-Context Learning, Security Patterns, and Code Evaluations Across Diverse LLMs [2.7138982369416866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized automated code generation in software engineering. However, concerns have arisen regarding the security and quality of the generated code. Our research aims to tackle these issues by introducing a framework for secure behavioral learning of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T11:29:34Z)
• Uncovering LLM-Generated Code: A Zero-Shot Synthetic Code Detector via Code Rewriting [78.48355455324688]
  We propose a novel zero-shot synthetic code detector based on the similarity between the original code and its LLM-rewritten variants.<n>Our results demonstrate a significant improvement over existing SOTA synthetic content detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T08:57:28Z)
• CodeHalu: Investigating Code Hallucinations in LLMs via Execution-based Verification [73.66920648926161]
  We introduce the concept of code hallucinations and propose a classification method for code hallucination based on execution verification.<n>We present a dynamic detection algorithm called CodeHalu designed to detect and quantify code hallucinations.<n>We also introduce the CodeHaluEval benchmark, which includes 8,883 samples from 699 tasks, to systematically and quantitatively evaluate code hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T23:56:38Z)
• Assured LLM-Based Software Engineering [51.003878077888686]
  This paper is an outline of the content of the keynote by Mark Harman at the International Workshop on Interpretability, Robustness, and Benchmarking in Neural Software Engineering, Monday 15th April 2024, Lisbon, Portugal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T20:38:46Z)
• Can ChatGPT replace StackOverflow? A Study on Robustness and Reliability of Large Language Model Code Generation [8.575560293086289]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T18:36:28Z)

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.