mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CGEMs: A Metric Model for Automatic Code Generation using GPT-3

arXiv 2108.10168 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2021cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Today, AI technology is showing its strengths in almost every industry and walks of life. From text generation, text summarization, chatbots, NLP is being used widely. One such paradigm is automatic code generation. An AI could be generating anything; hence the output space is unconstrained. A self-driving car is driven for 100 million miles to validate its safety, but tests cannot be written to monitor and cover an unconstrained space. One of the solutions to validate AI-generated content is to constrain the problem and convert it from abstract to realistic, and this can be accomplished by either validating the unconstrained algorithm using theoretical proofs or by using Monte-Carlo simulation methods. In this case, we use the latter approach to test/validate a statistically significant number of samples. This hypothesis of validating the AI-generated code is the main motive of this work and to know if AI-generated code is reliable, a metric model CGEMs is proposed. This is an extremely challenging task as programs can have different logic with different naming conventions, but the metrics must capture the structure and logic of the program. This is similar to the importance grammar carries in AI-based text generation, Q&A, translations, etc. The various metrics that are garnered in this work to support the evaluation of generated code are as follows: Compilation, NL description to logic conversion, number of edits needed, some of the commonly used static-code metrics and NLP metrics. These metrics are applied to 80 codes generated using OpenAI's GPT-3. Post which a Neural network is designed for binary classification (acceptable/not acceptable quality of the generated code). The inputs to this network are the values of the features obtained from the metrics. The model achieves a classification accuracy of 76.92% and an F1 score of 55.56%. XAI is augmented for model interpretability.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2021.

Builds on

5 of 17 references.

References · 5

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2018code2vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Codecited by 249
  3. 2020IntelliCode Compose: Code Generation Using Transformercited by 225
  4. 2020PyMT5: multi-mode translation of natural language and Python code with transformerscited by 80
  5. 2016Latent Predictor Networks for Code Generationcited by 73

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 3.

6 papers.