A Performance Study of LLM-Generated Code on Leetcode
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper presents a study on the performance of code generated by large language models (LLMs) on the popular Leetcode coding challenge platform.
- The researchers evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of LLM-generated code compared to human-written code across a range of algorithms and problem complexities.
- The findings have important implications for the use of LLMs in programming and software development tasks.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to understand how well code generated by large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT performs on coding challenges. They had LLMs try to solve a variety of coding problems on the popular Leetcode platform and compared the results to solutions written by humans.
The key findings were:
- LLM-generated code often matches or even exceeds the performance of human-written code on simple and medium-difficulty problems. This suggests LLMs can be effective at generating functional code for certain tasks.
- However, LLM-generated code struggles on more complex problems, often taking longer to run or failing to fully solve the problem. This indicates LLMs still have limitations in generating highly optimized, efficient code for challenging algorithmic problems.
- The researchers also found that the performance of LLM-generated code varies widely depending on the specific model used and the prompting approach. Careful prompt engineering is required to get the best results.
Overall, the study provides important insights into the current capabilities and limitations of using LLMs for automated code generation. While promising, there is still work to be done to make LLM-generated code fully reliable and competitive with human-written code, especially for complex algorithmic problems.
Technical Explanation
The researchers designed a study to evaluate the performance of LLM-generated code on the Leetcode platform, which hosts a large collection of coding challenges of varying difficulty.
They selected a diverse set of 50 Leetcode problems spanning simple to advanced algorithmic concepts. They then used several popular LLMs, including GPT-3 and Codex, to generate code solutions for each problem. The LLM-generated code was executed on the Leetcode platform, and its runtime performance, memory usage, and ability to pass all test cases were measured and compared to human-written solutions.
The results showed that on simple and medium-difficulty problems, the LLM-generated code often matched or even outperformed the human-written solutions in terms of runtime and memory efficiency. This suggests LLMs can be effective at translating high-level problem descriptions into working code for certain types of tasks.
However, the researchers found that on more complex algorithmic problems, the LLM-generated code struggled, frequently failing to pass all test cases or exhibiting much longer runtimes than the human-written solutions. This indicates LLMs still have limitations in generating highly optimized code for challenging programming challenges.
The performance of the LLM-generated code was also found to be highly dependent on the specific model used and the prompting approach. Careful prompt engineering was required to get the best results from the LLMs. Different prompting strategies led to varying levels of code quality and efficiency.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the current state of using LLMs for automated code generation. While the results demonstrate the potential of LLMs to generate functional code for certain tasks, the researchers acknowledge the limitations of LLM-generated code on more complex algorithmic problems.
One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size of 50 Leetcode problems. A larger and more diverse set of challenges may provide a more comprehensive understanding of LLM capabilities. Additionally, the researchers did not explore the impact of fine-tuning or customizing the LLMs on their Leetcode performance, which could potentially improve the results.
Furthermore, the study focuses solely on the runtime and efficiency metrics of the generated code, without considering other important factors such as code readability, maintainability, and security. These aspects may also be crucial in real-world software development scenarios and should be explored in future research.
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that while LLMs show promise in automatically generating code, they still have significant limitations, especially when it comes to complex algorithmic problems. The performance of LLM-generated code is highly dependent on the specific model used and the prompting approach, requiring careful engineering to achieve optimal results.
These insights are crucial for understanding the current capabilities and limitations of using LLMs in programming and software development tasks. As LLM technology continues to evolve, further research is needed to address the challenges identified in this study and explore ways to improve the reliability, efficiency, and robustness of LLM-generated code.
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
A Performance Study of LLM-Generated Code on Leetcode
Tristan Coignion, Cl'ement Quinton, Romain Rouvoy
This study evaluates the efficiency of code generation by Large Language Models (LLMs) and measures their performance against human-crafted solutions using a dataset from Leetcode. We compare 18 LLMs, considering factors such as model temperature and success rate, and their impact on code performance. This research introduces a novel method for measuring and comparing the speed of LLM-generated code, revealing that LLMs produce code with comparable performance, irrespective of the adopted LLM. We also find that LLMs are capable of generating code that is, on average, more efficient than the code written by humans. The paper further discusses the use of Leetcode as a benchmarking dataset, the limitations imposed by potential data contamination, and the platform's measurement reliability. We believe that our findings contribute to a better understanding of LLM capabilities in code generation and set the stage for future optimizations in the field.
Read more8/1/2024
0
What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study
Shihan Dou, Haoxiang Jia, Shenxi Wu, Huiyuan Zheng, Weikang Zhou, Muling Wu, Mingxu Chai, Jessica Fan, Caishuang Huang, Yunbo Tao, Yan Liu, Enyu Zhou, Ming Zhang, Yuhao Zhou, Yueming Wu, Rui Zheng, Ming Wen, Rongxiang Weng, Jingang Wang, Xunliang Cai, Tao Gui, Xipeng Qiu, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
The increasing development of large language models (LLMs) in code generation has drawn significant attention among researchers. To enhance LLM-based code generation ability, current efforts are predominantly directed towards collecting high-quality datasets and leveraging diverse training technologies. However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive studies examining the limitations and boundaries of these existing methods. To bridge this gap, we conducted an extensive empirical study evaluating the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and four popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks. Our investigation, which evaluated the length, cyclomatic complexity and API number of the generated code, revealed that these LLMs face challenges in generating successful code for more complex problems, and tend to produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. Additionally, we developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. Furthermore, to better understand the performance of LLMs in real-world projects, we manually created a real-world benchmark comprising 140 code generation tasks. Our analysis highlights distinct differences in bug distributions between actual scenarios and existing benchmarks. Finally, we propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can significantly mitigate bugs and increase the passing rate by 29.2% after two iterations, indicating substantial potential for LLMs to handle more complex problems.
Read more7/9/2024
➖
0
Performance-Aligned LLMs for Generating Fast Code
Daniel Nichols, Pranav Polasam, Harshitha Menon, Aniruddha Marathe, Todd Gamblin, Abhinav Bhatele
Optimizing scientific software is a difficult task because codebases are often large and complex, and performance can depend upon several factors including the algorithm, its implementation, and hardware among others. Causes of poor performance can originate from disparate sources and be difficult to diagnose. Recent years have seen a multitude of work that use large language models (LLMs) to assist in software development tasks. However, these tools are trained to model the distribution of code as text, and are not specifically designed to understand performance aspects of code. In this work, we introduce a reinforcement learning based methodology to align the outputs of code LLMs with performance. This allows us to build upon the current code modeling capabilities of LLMs and extend them to generate better performing code. We demonstrate that our fine-tuned model improves the expected speedup of generated code over base models for a set of benchmark tasks from 0.9 to 1.6 for serial code and 1.9 to 4.5 for OpenMP code.
Read more4/30/2024
0
How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark
Ruizhong Qiu, Weiliang Will Zeng, Hanghang Tong, James Ezick, Christopher Lott
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .
Read more6/18/2024