Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

GitHub Copilot: the perfect Code compLeeter?

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 2406.11326 v1 pith:IAYCSULI submitted 2024-06-17 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords copilotcodeevaluateproblemleetcodeprogrammingpython3addition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper aims to evaluate GitHub Copilot's generated code quality based on the LeetCode problem set using a custom automated framework. We evaluate the results of Copilot for 4 programming languages: Java, C++, Python3 and Rust. We aim to evaluate Copilot's reliability in the code generation stage, the correctness of the generated code and its dependency on the programming language, problem's difficulty level and problem's topic. In addition to that, we evaluate code's time and memory efficiency and compare it to the average human results. In total, we generate solutions for 1760 problems for each programming language and evaluate all the Copilot's suggestions for each problem, resulting in over 50000 submissions to LeetCode spread over a 2-month period. We found that Copilot successfully solved most of the problems. However, Copilot was rather more successful in generating code in Java and C++ than in Python3 and Rust. Moreover, in case of Python3 Copilot proved to be rather unreliable in the code generation phase. We also discovered that Copilot's top-ranked suggestions are not always the best. In addition, we analysed how the topic of the problem impacts the correctness rate. Finally, based on statistics information from LeetCode, we can conclude that Copilot generates more efficient code than an average human.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Programming with AI: Evaluating ChatGPT, Gemini, AlphaCode, and GitHub Copilot for Programmers

    cs.SE 2024-11 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    By recompiling published benchmark scores, the paper names ChatGPT GPT-4-Turbo-0125 the most accurate coding assistant, with 87.2% pass@1 on HumanEval.

Pith tools