REVIEW 4 cited by
A Critical Review of Large Language Model on Software Engineering: An Example from ChatGPT and Automated Program Repair
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) have been gaining increasing attention and demonstrated promising performance across a variety of Software Engineering (SE) tasks, such as Automated Program Repair (APR), code summarization, and code completion. For example, ChatGPT, the latest black-box LLM, has been investigated by numerous recent research studies and has shown impressive performance in various tasks. However, there exists a potential risk of data leakage since these LLMs are usually close-sourced with unknown specific training details, e.g., pre-training datasets. In this paper, we seek to review the bug-fixing capabilities of ChatGPT on a clean APR benchmark with different research objectives. We first introduce {\benchmark}, a new benchmark with buggy and the corresponding fixed programs from competitive programming problems starting from 2023, after the training cutoff point of ChatGPT. The results on {\benchmark} show that ChatGPT is able to fix 109 out of 151 buggy programs using the basic prompt within 35 independent rounds, outperforming state-of-the-art LLMs CodeT5 and PLBART by 27.5\% and 62.4\% prediction accuracy. We also investigate the impact of three types of prompts, i.e., problem description, error feedback, and bug localization, leading to additional 34 fixed bugs. Besides, we provide additional discussion from the interactive nature of ChatGPT to illustrate the capacity of a dialog-based repair workflow with 9 additional fixed bugs. Inspired by the findings, we further pinpoint various challenges and opportunities for advanced SE study equipped with such LLMs (e.g.,~ChatGPT) in the near future. More importantly, our work calls for more research on the reevaluation of the achievements obtained by existing black-box LLMs across various SE tasks, not limited to ChatGPT on APR.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generation
A 1,620-sample, 8-language, Chinese/English benchmark separates code correctness from instruction-following and shows instruction compliance is far lower than correctness across 40+ LLMs.
-
Multilingual Multimodal Software Developer for Code Generation
A 7B vision-language model trained on synthetic diagram-to-code data outperforms several larger open-weight models on a new 10-language UML/flowchart code-generation benchmark.
-
Leveraging GPT-4 for Vulnerability-Witnessing Unit Test Generation
GPT-4 generated syntactically valid vulnerability-witnessing unit tests in 66.5% of runs, semantically valid tests in 7.5%, and useful templates in 68.5%, suggesting a semi-automated role.
-
Smart-LLaMA-DPO: Reinforced Large Language Model for Explainable Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection
A LLaMA-3.1-8B model trained with continual pre-training, supervised fine-tuning, and direct preference optimization reports state-of-the-art accuracy and F1 for smart contract vulnerability detection and explanation.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.