An empirical evaluation of GitHub copilot's code suggestions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GitHub and OpenAI recently launched Copilot, an "AI pair programmer" that utilizes the power of Natural Language Processing, Static Analysis, Code Synthesis, and Artificial Intelligence. Given a natural language description of the target functionality, Copilot can generate corresponding code in several programming languages. In this paper, we perform an empirical study to evaluate the correctness and understandability of Copilot's suggested code. We use 33 LeetCode questions to create queries for Copilot in four different programming languages. We evaluate the correctness of the corresponding 132 Copilot solutions by running LeetCode's provided tests, and evaluate understandability using SonarQube's cyclomatic complexity and cognitive complexity metrics. We find that Copilot's Java suggestions have the highest correctness score (57%) while JavaScript is the lowest (27%). Overall, Copilot's suggestions have low complexity with no notable differences between the programming languages. We also find some potential Copilot shortcomings, such as generating code that can be further simplified and code that relies on undefined helper methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it