Can We Make Code Green? Understanding Trade-Offs in LLMs vs. Human Code Optimizations

The rapid technological evolution has accelerated software development for various domains and use cases, contributing to a growing share of global carbon emissions. While recent large language models (LLMs) claim to assist developers in optimizing code for performance and energy efficiency, their efficacy in real-world scenarios remains under exploration. In this work, we explore the effectiveness of LLMs in reducing the environmental footprint of real-world projects, focusing on software written in Matlab-widely used in both academia and industry for scientific and engineering applications. We analyze energy-focused optimization on 400 scripts across 100 top GitHub repositories. We examine potential 2,176 optimizations recommended by leading LLMs, such as GPT-3, GPT-4, Llama, and Mixtral, and a senior Matlab developer, on energy consumption, memory usage, execution time consumption, and code correctness. The developer serves as a real-world baseline for comparing typical human and LLM-generated optimizations. Mapping these optimizations to 13 high-level themes, we found that LLMs propose a broad spectrum of improvements--beyond energy efficiency--including improving code readability and maintainability, memory management, error handling while the developer overlooked some parallel processing, error handling etc. However, our statistical tests reveal that the energy-focused optimizations unexpectedly negatively impacted memory usage, with no clear benefits regarding execution time or energy consumption. Our qualitative analysis of energy-time trade-offs revealed that some themes, such as vectorization preallocation, were among the common themes shaping these trade-offs. With LLMs becoming ubiquitous in modern software development, our study serves as a call to action: prioritizing the evaluation of common coding practices to identify the green ones.

Large Language Models for In-File Vulnerability Localization Can Be "Lost in the End"

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have enabled processing of larger inputs, leading everyday software developers to increasingly rely on chat-based large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to detect vulnerabilities across entire files, not just within functions. This new development practice requires researchers to urgently investigate whether commonly used LLMs can effectively analyze large file-sized inputs, in order to provide timely insights for software developers and engineers about the pros and cons of this emerging technological trend. Hence, the goal of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of several state-of-the-art chat-based LLMs, including the GPT models, in detecting in-file vulnerabilities. We conducted a costly investigation into how the performance of LLMs varies based on vulnerability type, input size, and vulnerability location within the file. To give enough statistical power to our study, we could only focus on the three most common (as well as dangerous) vulnerabilities: XSS, SQL injection, and path traversal. Our findings indicate that the effectiveness of LLMs in detecting these vulnerabilities is strongly influenced by both the location of the vulnerability and the overall size of the input. Specifically, regardless of the vulnerability type, LLMs tend to significantly (p < .05) underperform when detecting vulnerabilities located toward the end of larger files, a pattern we call the 'lost-in-the-end' effect. Finally, to further support software developers and practitioners, we also explored the optimal input size for these LLMs and presented a simple strategy for identifying it, which can be applied to other models and vulnerability types. Eventually, we show how adjusting the input size can lead to significant improvements in LLM-based vulnerability detection, with an average recall increase of over 37% across all models.

An Empirical Study on Compliance with Ranking Transparency in the Software Documentation of EU Online Platforms

Compliance with the European Union's Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation is challenging for online platforms, and assessing their compliance can be difficult for public authorities. This is partly due to the lack of automated tools for assessing the information (e.g., software documentation) platforms provide concerning ranking transparency. Our study tackles this issue in two ways. First, we empirically evaluate the compliance of six major platforms (Amazon, Bing, Booking, Google, Tripadvisor, and Yahoo), revealing substantial differences in their documentation. Second, we introduce and test automated compliance assessment tools based on ChatGPT and information retrieval technology. These tools are evaluated against human judgments, showing promising results as reliable proxies for compliance assessments. Our findings could help enhance regulatory compliance and align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10.3, which seeks to reduce inequality, including business disparities, on these platforms.