REVIEW 3 cited by
An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT
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
An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT
read the original abstract
To support software developers in finding and fixing software bugs, several automated program repair techniques have been introduced. Given a test suite, standard methods usually either synthesize a repair, or navigate a search space of software edits to find test-suite passing variants. Recent program repair methods are based on deep learning approaches. One of these novel methods, which is not primarily intended for automated program repair, but is still suitable for it, is ChatGPT. The bug fixing performance of ChatGPT, however, is so far unclear. Therefore, in this paper we evaluate ChatGPT on the standard bug fixing benchmark set, QuixBugs, and compare the performance with the results of several other approaches reported in the literature. We find that ChatGPT's bug fixing performance is competitive to the common deep learning approaches CoCoNut and Codex and notably better than the results reported for the standard program repair approaches. In contrast to previous approaches, ChatGPT offers a dialogue system through which further information, e.g., the expected output for a certain input or an observed error message, can be entered. By providing such hints to ChatGPT, its success rate can be further increased, fixing 31 out of 40 bugs, outperforming state-of-the-art.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Exploring Code Analysis: Zero-Shot Insights on Syntax and Semantics with LLMs
LLMs achieve strong results on syntax parsing tasks but show limited and variable performance on dynamic reasoning, with a clear performance hierarchy across model scales.
-
Characterizing initial human-AI proof formalization workflows
A controlled user study and qualitative survey find that AI assistance raises formalization accuracy for math proofs, with users flexibly combining multiple tools while retaining oversight.
-
How Secure is Code Generated by ChatGPT?
ChatGPT often generates code vulnerable to attacks even when prompted to produce secure code.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.