Chain of Targeted Verification Questions to Improve the Reliability of Code Generated by LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LLM-based assistants, such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT, have the potential to generate code that fulfills a programming task described in a natural language description, referred to as a prompt. The widespread accessibility of these assistants enables users with diverse backgrounds to generate code and integrate it into software projects. However, studies show that code generated by LLMs is prone to bugs and may miss various corner cases in task specifications. Presenting such buggy code to users can impact their reliability and trust in LLM-based assistants. Moreover, significant efforts are required by the user to detect and repair any bug present in the code, especially if no test cases are available. In this study, we propose a self-refinement method aimed at improving the reliability of code generated by LLMs by minimizing the number of bugs before execution, without human intervention, and in the absence of test cases. Our approach is based on targeted Verification Questions (VQs) to identify potential bugs within the initial code. These VQs target various nodes within the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the initial code, which have the potential to trigger specific types of bug patterns commonly found in LLM-generated code. Finally, our method attempts to repair these potential bugs by re-prompting the LLM with the targeted VQs and the initial code. Our evaluation, based on programming tasks in the CoderEval dataset, demonstrates that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art methods by decreasing the number of targeted errors in the code between 21% to 62% and improving the number of executable code instances to 13%.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".