Beyond Functional Correctness: Investigating Coding Style Inconsistencies in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have brought a paradigm shift to the field of code generation, offering the potential to enhance the software development process. However, previous research mainly focuses on the accuracy of code generation, while coding style differences between LLMs and human developers remain under-explored. In this paper, we empirically analyze the differences in coding style between the code generated by mainstream Code LLMs and the code written by human developers, and summarize coding style inconsistency taxonomy. Specifically, we first summarize the types of coding style inconsistencies by manually analyzing a large number of generation results. We then compare the code generated by Code LLMs with the code written by human programmers in terms of readability, conciseness, and robustness. The results reveal that LLMs and developers have different coding styles. Additionally, we study the possible causes of these inconsistencies and provide some solutions to alleviate the problem.

Vul-RAG: Enhancing LLM-based Vulnerability Detection via Knowledge-level RAG

Vulnerability detection is essential for software quality assurance. In recent years, deep learning models (especially large language models) have shown promise in vulnerability detection. In this work, we propose a novel LLM-based vulnerability detection technique Vul-RAG, which leverages knowledge-level retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework to detect vulnerability for the given code in three phases. First, Vul-RAG constructs a vulnerability knowledge base by extracting multi-dimension knowledge via LLMs from existing CVE instances; second, for a given code snippet, Vul-RAG} retrieves the relevant vulnerability knowledge from the constructed knowledge base based on functional semantics; third, Vul-RAG leverages LLMs to check the vulnerability of the given code snippet by reasoning the presence of vulnerability causes and fixing solutions of the retrieved vulnerability knowledge. Our evaluation of Vul-RAG on our constructed benchmark PairVul shows that Vul-RAG substantially outperforms all baselines by 12.96\%/110\% relative improvement in accuracy/pairwise-accuracy. In addition, our user study shows that the vulnerability knowledge generated by Vul-RAG can serve as high-quality explanations which can improve the manual detection accuracy from 0.60 to 0.77.

Resolving Crash Bugs via Large Language Models: An Empirical Study

Crash bugs cause unexpected program behaviors or even termination, requiring high-priority resolution. However, manually resolving crash bugs is challenging and labor-intensive, and researchers have proposed various techniques for their automated localization and repair. ChatGPT, a recent large language model (LLM), has garnered significant attention due to its exceptional performance across various domains. This work performs the first investigation into ChatGPT's capability in resolve real-world crash bugs, focusing on its effectiveness in both localizing and repairing code-related and environment-related crash bugs. Specifically, we initially assess ChatGPT's fundamental ability to resolve crash bugs with basic prompts in a single iteration. We observe that ChatGPT performs better at resolving code-related crash bugs compared to environment-related ones, and its primary challenge in resolution lies in inaccurate localization. Additionally, we explore ChatGPT's potential with various advanced prompts. Furthermore, by stimulating ChatGPT's self-planning, it methodically investigates each potential crash-causing environmental factor through proactive inquiry, ultimately identifying the root cause of the crash. Based on our findings, we propose IntDiagSolver, an interaction methodology designed to facilitate precise crash bug resolution through continuous interaction with LLMs. Evaluating IntDiagSolver on multiple LLMs reveals consistent enhancement in the accuracy of crash bug resolution, including ChatGPT, Claude, and CodeLlama.

ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation

In this work, we make the first attempt to evaluate LLMs in a more challenging code generation scenario, i.e. class-level code generation. We first manually construct the first class-level code generation benchmark ClassEval of 100 class-level Python code generation tasks with approximately 500 person-hours. Based on it, we then perform the first study of 11 state-of-the-art LLMs on class-level code generation. Based on our results, we have the following main findings. First, we find that all existing LLMs show much worse performance on class-level code generation compared to on standalone method-level code generation benchmarks like HumanEval; and the method-level coding ability cannot equivalently reflect the class-level coding ability among LLMs. Second, we find that GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 still exhibit dominate superior than other LLMs on class-level code generation, and the second-tier models includes Instruct-Starcoder, Instruct-Codegen, and Wizardcoder with very similar performance. Third, we find that generating the entire class all at once (i.e. holistic generation strategy) is the best generation strategy only for GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, while method-by-method generation (i.e. incremental and compositional) is better strategies for the other models with limited ability of understanding long instructions and utilizing the middle information. Lastly, we find the limited model ability of generating method-dependent code and discuss the frequent error types in generated classes. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/FudanSELab/ClassEval.

Evaluating Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models on Code Comprehension and Generation

In this work, we evaluate 10 open-source instructed LLMs on four representative code comprehension and generation tasks. We have the following main findings. First, for the zero-shot setting, instructed LLMs are very competitive on code comprehension and generation tasks and sometimes even better than small SOTA models specifically fine-tuned on each downstream task. We also find that larger instructed LLMs are not always better on code-related tasks. Second, for the few-shot setting, we find that adding demonstration examples substantially helps instructed LLMs perform better on most code comprehension and generation tasks; however, the examples would sometimes induce unstable or even worse performance. Furthermore, we find widely-used BM25-based shot selection strategy significantly outperforms the basic random selection or fixed selection only on generation problems. Third, for the fine-tuning setting, we find that fine-tuning could further improve the model performance on downstream code comprehension and generation tasks compared to the zero-shot/one-shot performance. In addition, after being fine-tuned on the same downstream task dataset, instructed LLMs outperform both the small SOTA models and similar-scaled LLMs without instruction tuning. Based on our findings, we further present practical implications on model and usage recommendation, performance and cost trade-offs, and future direction.