Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in code generation, but they may generate erroneous programs. Reading a program takes ten times longer than writing it. Showing these erroneous programs to developers will waste developers' energies and introduce security risks to software. To address the above limitations, we propose HonestCoder, a novel LLM-based code generation approach. HonestCoder selectively shows the generated programs to developers based on LLMs' confidence. The confidence provides valuable insights into the correctness of generated programs. To achieve this goal, we propose a novel approach to estimate LLMs' confidence in code generation. It estimates confidence by measuring the multi-modal similarity between LLMs-generated programs. We collect and release a multilingual benchmark named TruthCodeBench, which consists of 2,265 samples and covers two popular programming languages (i.e., Python and Java). We apply HonestCoder to four popular LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-Coder and Code Llama) and evaluate it on TruthCodeBench. Based on the experiments, we obtain the following insights. (1) HonestCoder can effectively estimate LLMs' confidence and accurately determine the correctness of generated programs. For example, HonestCoder outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline by 27.79% in AUROC and 63.74% in AUCPR. (2) HonestCoder can decrease the number of erroneous programs shown to developers. Compared to eight baselines, it can show more correct programs and fewer erroneous programs to developers. (3) Compared to showing code indiscriminately, HonestCoder only adds slight time overhead (approximately 0.4 seconds per requirement). (4) We discuss future directions to facilitate the application of LLMs in software development. We hope this work can motivate broad discussions about measuring the reliability of LLMs' outputs in performing code-related tasks.

The latest paradigm shift in software development brings in the innovation and automation afforded by Large Language Models (LLMs), showcased by Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), which has shown remarkable capacity to generate code autonomously, significantly reducing the manual effort required for various programming tasks. Although, the potential benefits of LLM-generated code are vast, most notably in efficiency and rapid prototyping, as LLMs become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle and hence the supply chain, complex and multifaceted challenges arise as the code generated from these language models carry profound questions on quality and correctness. Research is required to comprehensively explore these critical concerns surrounding LLM-generated code. In this paper, we propose a novel solution called metamorphic prompt testing to address these challenges. Our intuitive observation is that intrinsic consistency always exists among correct code pieces but may not exist among flawed code pieces, so we can detect flaws in the code by detecting inconsistencies. Therefore, we can vary a given prompt to multiple prompts with paraphrasing, and to ask the LLM to acquire multiple versions of generated code, so that we can validate whether the semantic relations still hold in the acquired code through cross-validation. Our evaluation on HumanEval shows that metamorphic prompt testing is able to detect 75 percent of the erroneous programs generated by GPT-4, with a false positive rate of 8.6 percent.

Automatic program correction is an active topic of research, which holds the potential of dramatically improving productivity of programmers during the software development process and correctness of software in general. Recent advances in machine learning, deep learning and NLP have rekindled the hope to eventually fully automate the process of repairing programs. A key challenges is ambiguity, as multiple codes -- or fixes -- can implement the same functionality. In addition, dataset by nature fail to capture the variance introduced by such ambiguities. Therefore, we propose a deep generative model to automatically correct programming errors by learning a distribution of potential fixes. Our model is formulated as a deep conditional variational autoencoder that samples diverse fixes for the given erroneous programs. In order to account for ambiguity and inherent lack of representative datasets, we propose a novel regularizer to encourage the model to generate diverse fixes. Our evaluations on common programming errors show for the first time the generation of diverse fixes and strong improvements over the state-of-the-art approaches by fixing up to $61\%$ of the mistakes.

The problem of automatically fixing programming errors is a very active research topic in software engineering. This is a challenging problem as fixing even a single error may require analysis of the entire program. In practice, a number of errors arise due to programmer's inexperience with the programming language or lack of attention to detail. We call these common programming errors. These are analogous to grammatical errors in natural languages. Compilers detect such errors, but their error messages are usually inaccurate. In this work, we present an end-to-end solution, called DeepFix, that can fix multiple such errors in a program without relying on any external tool to locate or fix them. At the heart of DeepFix is a multi-layered sequence-to-sequence neural network with attention which is trained to predict erroneous program locations along with the required correct statements. On a set of 6971 erroneous C programs written by students for 93 programming tasks, DeepFix could fix 1881 (27%) programs completely and 1338 (19%) programs partially.