Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.07599 v1 pith:DW64SC3Z submitted 2023-11-10 cs.SE cs.AI

Testing LLMs on Code Generation with Varying Levels of Prompt Specificity

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords llmscodegenerationcodingpromptspecificityautomateddevelopment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unparalleled prowess in mimicking human-like text generation and processing. Among the myriad of applications that benefit from LLMs, automated code generation is increasingly promising. The potential to transform natural language prompts into executable code promises a major shift in software development practices and paves the way for significant reductions in manual coding efforts and the likelihood of human-induced errors. This paper reports the results of a study that evaluates the performance of various LLMs, such as Bard, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Claude-2, in generating Python for coding problems. We focus on how levels of prompt specificity impact the accuracy, time efficiency, and space efficiency of the generated code. A benchmark of 104 coding problems, each with four types of prompts with varying degrees of tests and specificity, was employed to examine these aspects comprehensively. Our results indicate significant variations in performance across different LLMs and prompt types, and its key contribution is to reveal the ideal prompting strategy for creating accurate Python functions. This study lays the groundwork for further research in LLM capabilities and suggests practical implications for utilizing LLMs in automated code generation tasks and test-driven development.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Prompt language affects LLM code generation, but English is not consistently best: Chinese prompts improve Python correctness on CoderEval, while quality and lexicon effects vary by model and programming language.