Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models
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
This study investigates the reliability of code generation by Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on identifying and analyzing defects in the generated code. Despite the advanced capabilities of LLMs in automating code generation, ensuring the accuracy and functionality of the output remains a significant challenge. By using a structured defect classification method to understand their nature and origins this study categorizes and analyzes 367 identified defects from code snippets generated by LLMs, with a significant proportion being functionality and algorithm errors. These error categories indicate key areas where LLMs frequently fail, underscoring the need for targeted improvements. To enhance the accuracy of code generation, this paper implemented five prompt engineering techniques, including Scratchpad Prompting, Program of Thoughts Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, Chain of Code Prompting, and Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting. These techniques were applied to refine the input prompts, aiming to reduce ambiguities and improve the models' accuracy rate. The research findings suggest that precise and structured prompting significantly miti-gates common defects, thereby increasing the reliability of LLM-aenerated code.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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