Large language models of code (Code-LLMs) have recently brought tremendous advances to code completion, a fundamental feature of programming assistance and code intelligence. However, most existing works ignore the possible presence of bugs in the code context for generation, which are inevitable in software development. Therefore, we introduce and study the buggy-code completion problem, inspired by the realistic scenario of real-time code suggestion where the code context contains potential bugs - anti-patterns that can become bugs in the completed program. To systematically study the task, we introduce two datasets: one with synthetic bugs derived from semantics-altering operator changes (buggy-HumanEval) and one with realistic bugs derived from user submissions to coding problems (buggy-FixEval). We find that the presence of potential bugs significantly degrades the generation performance of the high-performing Code-LLMs. For instance, the passing rates of CODEGEN-2B-MONO on test cases of buggy-HumanEval drop more than 50% given a single potential bug in the context. Finally, we investigate several post-hoc methods for mitigating the adverse effect of potential bugs and find that there remains a large gap in post-mitigation performance.

Large language models of code (Code-LLMs) have recently brought tremendous advances to code completion, a fundamental feature of programming assistance and code intelligence. However, most existing works ignore the possible presence of bugs in the code context for generation, which are inevitable in software development. Therefore, we introduce and study the buggy-code completion problem, inspired by the realistic scenario of real-time code suggestion where the code context contains potential bugs – anti-patterns that can become bugs in the completed program. To systematically study the task, we introduce two datasets: one with synthetic bugs derived from semantics-altering operator changes (buggy-HumanEval) and one with realistic bugs derived from user submissions to coding problems (buggy-FixEval). We find that the presence of potential bugs significantly degrades the generation performance of the high-performing Code-LLMs. For instance, the passing rates of CODEGEN-2B-MONO on test cases of buggy-HumanEval drop more than 50% given a single potential bug in the context.

Language model-based code completion models have quickly grown in use, helping thousands of developers write code in many different programming languages. However, research on code completion models typically focuses on imperative languages such as Python and JavaScript, which results in a lack of representation for functional programming languages. Consequently, these models often perform poorly on functional languages such as Haskell. To investigate whether this can be alleviated, we evaluate the performance of two language models for code, CodeGPT and UniXcoder, on the functional programming language Haskell. We fine-tune and evaluate the models on Haskell functions sourced from a publicly accessible Haskell dataset on HuggingFace. Additionally, we manually evaluate the models using our novel translated HumanEval dataset. Our automatic evaluation shows that knowledge of imperative programming languages in the pre-training of LLMs may not transfer well to functional languages, but that code completion on functional languages is feasible. Consequently, this shows the need for more high-quality Haskell datasets. A manual evaluation on HumanEval-Haskell indicates CodeGPT frequently generates empty predictions and extra comments, while UniXcoder more often produces incomplete or incorrect predictions. Finally, we release HumanEval-Haskell, along with the fine-tuned models and all code required to reproduce our experiments on GitHub (https://github.com/AISE-TUDelft/HaskellCCEval).