Evaluating AI-generated code for C++, Fortran, Go, Java, Julia, Matlab, Python, R, and Rust
0
🔎
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This study evaluates the ability of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 to generate code across various programming languages.
- The goal is to assess the effectiveness of these AI models for generating scientific programs.
- The researchers asked ChatGPT to generate three different codes: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel 1D stencil-based heat equation solver.
- The analysis focused on the compilation, runtime performance, and accuracy of the generated codes.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to understand how well the AI language model ChatGPT could write computer programs in different programming languages. They tested two versions of ChatGPT, 3.5 and 4, by asking the AI to generate three specific types of scientific code: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel heat equation solver.
The researchers were interested in how well the generated code would compile, how fast it would run, and how accurate the results would be. They found that both versions of ChatGPT were able to create code that could be compiled and run, but some languages were easier for the AI to work with than others. This may be because the training data used to teach ChatGPT had more examples in some languages than others.
The researchers also discovered that the parallel heat equation solver code, even though it was a relatively simple example, was particularly challenging for ChatGPT to generate correctly. Parallel programming, where multiple parts of a program run at the same time, seems to be an area where the AI still struggles.
Technical Explanation
The researchers in this study evaluated the capabilities of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 in generating code across a range of programming languages. Their goal was to assess the effectiveness of these large language models for generating scientific programs.
To do this, they asked ChatGPT to generate three different types of code: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel 1D stencil-based heat equation solver. The researchers then analyzed the compilation, runtime performance, and accuracy of the generated code.
They found that both versions of ChatGPT were able to successfully create code that could be compiled and run, with some help. However, the researchers noted that some programming languages were easier for the AI to use than others, potentially due to differences in the size of the training sets used.
Additionally, the researchers discovered that generating parallel code, even for a relatively simple example, was particularly challenging for ChatGPT. This suggests that complex algorithmic reasoning and programming skills are still areas where large language models like ChatGPT have room for improvement.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several caveats and limitations in their study. For instance, they note that the performance of ChatGPT may have been influenced by the specific prompts and instructions used to generate the code. Additionally, the researchers only tested a limited set of programming tasks, and it's possible that the AI may perform differently on a wider range of programming challenges.
Another potential issue is the reliance on the researchers' own evaluation of the generated code, which could introduce subjective biases. To address this, the researchers could have included a larger panel of expert reviewers or automated testing frameworks to assess the code quality more objectively.
Furthermore, the study does not delve into the underlying reasons why ChatGPT struggled more with certain programming languages or parallel programming tasks. A deeper investigation into the AI's architectural limitations or training data biases could provide valuable insights for improving the programming capabilities of large language models like ChatGPT.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT in generating scientific code across a variety of programming languages. While the AI was able to successfully create compilable and runnable code in many cases, the researchers identified areas where ChatGPT still struggles, such as parallel programming and more complex algorithmic reasoning.
These findings have important implications for the potential use of large language models like ChatGPT as code generation tools, particularly in scientific and high-performance computing domains. The study highlights the need for continued research and development to enhance the programming skills of these AI systems and make them more reliable and effective for a wider range of programming tasks.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🔎
0
Evaluating AI-generated code for C++, Fortran, Go, Java, Julia, Matlab, Python, R, and Rust
Patrick Diehl, Noujoud Nader, Steve Brandt, Hartmut Kaiser
This study evaluates the capabilities of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 in generating code across a diverse range of programming languages. Our objective is to assess the effectiveness of these AI models for generating scientific programs. To this end, we asked ChatGPT to generate three distinct codes: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel 1D stencil-based heat equation solver. The focus of our analysis was on the compilation, runtime performance, and accuracy of the codes. While both versions of ChatGPT successfully created codes that compiled and ran (with some help), some languages were easier for the AI to use than others (possibly because of the size of the training sets used). Parallel codes -- even the simple example we chose to study here -- also difficult for the AI to generate correctly.
Read more7/9/2024
📊
0
Unmasking the giant: A comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's proficiency in coding algorithms and data structures
Sayed Erfan Arefin, Tasnia Ashrafi Heya, Hasan Al-Qudah, Ynes Ineza, Abdul Serwadda
The transformative influence of Large Language Models (LLMs) is profoundly reshaping the Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology domain. Notably, ChatGPT distinguishes itself within these models, demonstrating remarkable performance in multi-turn conversations and exhibiting code proficiency across an array of languages. In this paper, we carry out a comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's coding capabilities based on what is to date the largest catalog of coding challenges. Our focus is on the python programming language and problems centered on data structures and algorithms, two topics at the very foundations of Computer Science. We evaluate ChatGPT for its ability to generate correct solutions to the problems fed to it, its code quality, and nature of run-time errors thrown by its code. Where ChatGPT code successfully executes, but fails to solve the problem at hand, we look into patterns in the test cases passed in order to gain some insights into how wrong ChatGPT code is in these kinds of situations. To infer whether ChatGPT might have directly memorized some of the data that was used to train it, we methodically design an experiment to investigate this phenomena. Making comparisons with human performance whenever feasible, we investigate all the above questions from the context of both its underlying learning models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), on a vast array sub-topics within the main topics, and on problems having varying degrees of difficulty.
Read more5/28/2024
🛸
0
Evaluation of ChatGPT Usability as A Code Generation Tool
Tanha Miah, Hong Zhu
With the rapid advance of machine learning (ML) technology, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as an intelligent tool to generate program code from natural language specifications. However, existing evaluations of LLMs have focused on their capabilities in comparison with humans. It is desirable to evaluate their usability when deciding on whether to use a LLM in software production. This paper proposes a user centric method for this purpose. It includes metadata in the test cases of a benchmark to describe their usages, conducts testing in a multi-attempt process that mimics the uses of LLMs, measures LLM generated solutions on a set of quality attributes that reflect usability, and evaluates the performance based on user experiences in the uses of LLMs as a tool. The paper also reports a case study with the method in the evaluation of ChatGPT's usability as a code generation tool for the R programming language. Our experiments demonstrated that ChatGPT is highly useful for generating R program code although it may fail on hard programming tasks. The user experiences are good with overall average number of attempts being 1.61 and the average time of completion being 47.02 seconds. Our experiments also found that the weakest aspect of usability is conciseness, which has a score of 3.80 out of 5.
Read more6/19/2024
0
ChatGPT Code Detection: Techniques for Uncovering the Source of Code
Marc Oedingen, Raphael C. Engelhardt, Robin Denz, Maximilian Hammer, Wolfgang Konen
In recent times, large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides in generating computer code, blurring the lines between code created by humans and code produced by artificial intelligence (AI). As these technologies evolve rapidly, it is crucial to explore how they influence code generation, especially given the risk of misuse in areas like higher education. This paper explores this issue by using advanced classification techniques to differentiate between code written by humans and that generated by ChatGPT, a type of LLM. We employ a new approach that combines powerful embedding features (black-box) with supervised learning algorithms - including Deep Neural Networks, Random Forests, and Extreme Gradient Boosting - to achieve this differentiation with an impressive accuracy of 98%. For the successful combinations, we also examine their model calibration, showing that some of the models are extremely well calibrated. Additionally, we present white-box features and an interpretable Bayes classifier to elucidate critical differences between the code sources, enhancing the explainability and transparency of our approach. Both approaches work well but provide at most 85-88% accuracy. We also show that untrained humans solve the same task not better than random guessing. This study is crucial in understanding and mitigating the potential risks associated with using AI in code generation, particularly in the context of higher education, software development, and competitive programming.
Read more7/4/2024