Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluation of the Programming Skills of Large Language Models

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 2405.14388 v1 pith:UGUZ7GGZ submitted 2024-05-23 cs.SE cs.CLcs.CR

classification cs.SEcs.CLcs.CR
keywords codeprogrammingqualityllmslanguagelargemodelssignificant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The advent of Large Language Models (LLM) has revolutionized the efficiency and speed with which tasks are completed, marking a significant leap in productivity through technological innovation. As these chatbots tackle increasingly complex tasks, the challenge of assessing the quality of their outputs has become paramount. This paper critically examines the output quality of two leading LLMs, OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini AI, by comparing the quality of programming code generated in both their free versions. Through the lens of a real-world example coupled with a systematic dataset, we investigate the code quality produced by these LLMs. Given their notable proficiency in code generation, this aspect of chatbot capability presents a particularly compelling area for analysis. Furthermore, the complexity of programming code often escalates to levels where its verification becomes a formidable task, underscoring the importance of our study. This research aims to shed light on the efficacy and reliability of LLMs in generating high-quality programming code, an endeavor that has significant implications for the field of software development and beyond.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How Robust are LLM-Generated Library Imports? An Empirical Study using Stack Overflow

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 112 Python Stack Overflow questions, six LLMs recommended mostly mature, permissive third-party libraries, with about 4.6% of unique imports unresolvable due to import/package name mismatches.

Pith tools