--Automatic code generation has gained significant momentum with the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT -4. Although many studies focus on improving the effectiveness of LLMs for code generation, very limited work tries to understand the generated code's characteristics and leverage that to improve failed cases. In this paper, as the most straightforward characteristic of code, we investigate the relationship between code complexity and the success of LLMgenerated code. Using a large set of standard complexity metrics, we first conduct an empirical analysis to explore their correlation with LLM's performance on code generation (i.e., Pass@1). Using logistic regression models, we identify which complexity metrics are most predictive of code correctness. Building on these findings, we propose an iterative feedback method, where LLMs are prompted to generate correct code based on complexity metrics from previous failed outputs. Experiment results show that our approach makes notable improvements, particularly with a smaller LLM (GPT - 3.5 T urbo), where, e.g., Pass@1 increased by 35.71% compared to the baseline's improvement of 12.5% on the HumanEval dataset. The study expands experiments to BigCodeBench and integrates the method with the Reflexion code generation agent, leading to Pass@1 improvements of 20% (GPT -4o) and 23.07% The results highlight that complexity-aware feedback enhances both direct LLM prompting and agent-based workflows. Automatic code generation aims to reduce manual coding and boost productivity [1], with LLMs like GPT -4 [2] making significant advancements. However, ensuring accuracy and correctness remains a challenge. Recently, several approaches have been proposed to enhance LLM-based code generation.

This paper presents a comprehensive performance evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in solving programming challenges from Leetcode, a widely used platform for algorithm practice and technical interviews. We began by crawling the Leetcode website to collect a diverse set of problems encompassing various difficulty levels and topics. Using this dataset, we generated solutions with multiple LLMs, including GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo (ChatGPT-turbo). The generated solutions were systematically evaluated for correctness and efficiency. We employed the pass@k metric to assess the success rates within a given number of attempts and analyzed the runtime performance of the solutions. Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of current LLMs [10] in code generation and problem-solving tasks, providing insights into their potential applications and areas for improvement in automated programming assistance.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools with potential applications in various fields, including software engineering. Within the scope of this research, we evaluate five different state-of-the-art LLMs - Bard, BingChat, ChatGPT, Llama2, and Code Llama - concerning their capabilities for text-to-code generation. In an empirical study, we feed prompts with textual descriptions of coding problems sourced from the programming website LeetCode to the models with the task of creating solutions in Python. Subsequently, the quality of the generated outputs is assessed using the testing functionalities of LeetCode. The results indicate large differences in performance between the investigated models. ChatGPT can handle these typical programming challenges by far the most effectively, surpassing even code-specialized models like Code Llama. To gain further insights, we measure the runtime as well as the memory usage of the generated outputs and compared them to the other code submissions on Leetcode. A detailed error analysis, encompassing a comparison of the differences concerning correct indentation and form of the generated code as well as an assignment of the incorrectly solved tasks to certain error categories allows us to obtain a more nuanced picture of the results and potential for improvement. The results also show a clear pattern of increasingly incorrect produced code when the models are facing a lot of context in the form of longer prompts.

This study evaluates the efficiency of code generation by Large Language Models (LLMs) and measures their performance against human-crafted solutions using a dataset from Leetcode. We compare 18 LLMs, considering factors such as model temperature and success rate, and their impact on code performance. This research introduces a novel method for measuring and comparing the speed of LLM-generated code, revealing that LLMs produce code with comparable performance, irrespective of the adopted LLM. We also find that LLMs are capable of generating code that is, on average, more efficient than the code written by humans. The paper further discusses the use of Leetcode as a benchmarking dataset, the limitations imposed by potential data contamination, and the platform's measurement reliability. We believe that our findings contribute to a better understanding of LLM capabilities in code generation and set the stage for future optimizations in the field.

This paper aims to evaluate GitHub Copilot's generated code quality based on the LeetCode problem set using a custom automated framework. We evaluate the results of Copilot for 4 programming languages: Java, C++, Python3 and Rust. We aim to evaluate Copilot's reliability in the code generation stage, the correctness of the generated code and its dependency on the programming language, problem's difficulty level and problem's topic. In addition to that, we evaluate code's time and memory efficiency and compare it to the average human results. In total, we generate solutions for 1760 problems for each programming language and evaluate all the Copilot's suggestions for each problem, resulting in over 50000 submissions to LeetCode spread over a 2-month period. We found that Copilot successfully solved most of the problems. However, Copilot was rather more successful in generating code in Java and C++ than in Python3 and Rust. Moreover, in case of Python3 Copilot proved to be rather unreliable in the code generation phase. We also discovered that Copilot's top-ranked suggestions are not always the best. In addition, we analysed how the topic of the problem impacts the correctness rate. Finally, based on statistics information from LeetCode, we can conclude that Copilot generates more efficient code than an average human.

While language models are increasingly more proficient at code generation, they still frequently generate incorrect programs. Many of these programs are obviously wrong, but others are more subtle and pass weaker correctness checks such as being able to compile. In this work, we focus on these counterfeit samples: programs sampled from a language model that 1) have a high enough log-probability to be generated at a moderate temperature and 2) pass weak correctness checks. Overall, we discover that most models have a very shallow understanding of counterfeits through three clear failure modes. First, models mistakenly classify them as correct. Second, models are worse at reasoning about the execution behaviour of counterfeits and often predict their execution results as if they were correct. Third, when asking models to fix counterfeits, the likelihood of a model successfully repairing a counterfeit is often even lower than that of sampling a correct program from scratch. Counterfeits also have very unexpected properties: first, counterfeit programs for problems that are easier for a model to solve are not necessarily easier to detect and only slightly easier to execute and repair. Second, counterfeits from a given model are just as confusing to the model itself as they are to other models. Finally, both strong and weak models are able to generate counterfeit samples that equally challenge all models. In light of our findings, we recommend that care and caution be taken when relying on models to understand their own samples, especially when no external feedback is incorporated.

Generative AI is changing the way developers interact with software systems, providing services that can produce and deliver new content, crafted to satisfy the actual needs of developers. For instance, developers can ask for new code directly from within their IDEs by writing natural language prompts, and integrated services based on generative AI, such as Copilot, immediately respond to prompts by providing ready-to-use code snippets. Formulating the prompt appropriately, and incorporating the useful information while avoiding any information overload, can be an important factor in obtaining the right piece of code. The task of designing good prompts is known as prompt engineering. In this paper, we systematically investigate the influence of eight prompt features on the style and the content of prompts, on the level of correctness, complexity, size, and similarity to the developers' code of the generated code. We specifically consider the task of using Copilot with 124,800 prompts obtained by systematically combining the eight considered prompt features to generate the implementation of 200 Java methods. Results show how some prompt features, such as the presence of examples and the summary of the purpose of the method, can significantly influence the quality of the result.

Large-scale language models (LLMs) have emerged as a groundbreaking innovation in the realm of question-answering and conversational agents. These models, leveraging different deep learning architectures such as Transformers, are trained on vast corpora to predict sentences based on given queries. Among these LLMs, ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has ushered in a new era by utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) to tackle diverse problem domains, ranging from composing essays and biographies to solving intricate mathematical integrals. The versatile applications enabled by ChatGPT offer immense value to users. However, assessing the performance of ChatGPT's output poses a challenge, particularly in scenarios where queries lack clear objective criteria for correctness. For instance, evaluating the quality of generated essays becomes arduous and relies heavily on manual labor, in stark contrast to evaluating solutions to well-defined, closed-ended questions such as mathematical problems. This research paper delves into the efficacy of ChatGPT in solving programming problems, examining both the correctness and the efficiency of its solution in terms of time and memory complexity. The research reveals a commendable overall success rate of 71.875\%, denoting the proportion of problems for which ChatGPT was able to provide correct solutions that successfully satisfied all the test cases present in Leetcode. It exhibits strengths in structured problems and shows a linear correlation between its success rate and problem acceptance rates. However, it struggles to improve solutions based on feedback, pointing to potential shortcomings in debugging tasks. These findings provide a compact yet insightful glimpse into ChatGPT's capabilities and areas for improvement.

Language models are promising solutions for tackling increasing complex problems. In software engineering, they recently attracted attention in code assistants, with programs automatically written in a given programming language from a programming task description in natural language. They have the potential to save time and effort when writing code. However, these systems are currently poorly understood, preventing them from being used optimally. In this paper, we investigate the various input parameters of two language models, and conduct a study to understand if variations of these input parameters (e.g. programming task description and the surrounding context, creativity of the language model, number of generated solutions) can have a significant impact on the quality of the generated programs. We design specific operators for varying input parameters and apply them over two code assistants (Copilot and Codex) and two benchmarks representing algorithmic problems (HumanEval and LeetCode). Our results showed that varying the input parameters can significantly improve the performance of language models. However, there is a tight dependency when varying the temperature, the prompt and the number of generated solutions, making potentially hard for developers to properly control the parameters to obtain an optimal result. This work opens opportunities to propose (automated) strategies for improving performance.

Soft skills: Amazon interview preparation guide, principles Amazon expects in their employees, Amazon principles explained, Situation Task Action Result technique, soft skills from a machine learning PhD; Coding: coding interview preparation leetcode, Cracking the Coding interview book, practicing machine learning problems; Machine learning theory: Machine Learning QA book 1, Machine Learning QA book 2, summary from glassdoor, when not to use machine learning, methods section of paperswithcode. If you liked this article share it with a friend! To read more on machine learning and image processing topics press subscribe!