Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The role of library versions in Developer-ChatGPT conversations

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 2401.16340 v1 pith:6ZOZUT5D submitted 2024-01-29 cs.SE

The role of library versions in Developer-ChatGPT conversations

classification cs.SE
keywords codechatgptconversationslibraryconstraintsversionlibrariesanalyze
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The latest breakthroughs in large language models (LLM) have empowered software development tools, such as ChatGPT, to aid developers in complex tasks. Developers use ChatGPT to write code, review code changes, and even debug their programs. In these interactions, ChatGPT often recommends code snippets that depend on external libraries. However, code from libraries changes over time, invalidating a once-correct code snippet and making it difficult to reuse recommended code. In this study, we analyze DevGPT, a dataset of more than 4,000 Developer-ChatGPT interactions, to understand the role of library versions in code-related conversations. We quantify how often library version constraints are mentioned in code-related conversations and when ChatGPT recommends the installation of specific libraries. Our findings show that, albeit to constantly recommend and analyze code with external dependencies, library version constraints only appear in 9% of the conversations. In the majority of conversations, the version constraints are prompted by users (as opposed to being specified by ChatGPT) as a method for receiving better quality responses. Moreover, we study how library version constraints are used in the conversation through qualitative methods, identifying several potential problems that warrant further research.

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. Library Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Code: A Risk Analysis Grounded in Developer Queries

    cs.SE 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A study of seven LLMs finds that realistic prompt variations such as one-character misspellings trigger library hallucinations in up to 26% of cases, fabricated names in up to 99%, and time-based prompts in up to 85%,...