REVIEW 1 cited by
A Taxonomy of Inefficiencies in LLM-Generated Python Code
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
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely adopted for automated code generation with promising results. Although prior research has assessed LLM-generated code and identified various quality issues -- such as redundancy, poor maintainability, and sub-optimal performance a systematic understanding and categorization of these inefficiencies remain unexplored. Without such knowledge, practitioners struggle to optimize LLM-generated code for real-world applications, limiting its adoption. This study can also guide improving code LLMs, enhancing the quality and efficiency of code generation. Therefore, in this study, we empirically investigate inefficiencies in LLM-generated code by state-of-the-art models, i.e., CodeLlama, DeepSeek-Coder, and CodeGemma. To do so, we analyze 492 generated code snippets in the HumanEval++ dataset. We then construct a taxonomy of inefficiencies in LLM-generated code that includes 5 categories General Logic, Performance, Readability, Maintainability, and Errors) and 19 subcategories of inefficiencies. We then validate the proposed taxonomy through an online survey with 58 LLM practitioners and researchers. Our study indicates that logic and performance-related inefficiencies are the most popular, relevant, and frequently co-occur and impact overall code quality inefficiency. Our taxonomy provides a structured basis for evaluating the quality LLM-generated code and guiding future research to improve code generation efficiency.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluating the Energy-Efficiency of the Code Generated by LLMs
LLM-generated Python solutions typically consume more energy than canonical human-written solutions, with DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4o the most efficient LLMs and worst-case gaps near 450 times on certain problems.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.