Extending the Frontier of ChatGPT: Code Generation and Debugging
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2023.
Builds on
20 of 40 references.
References · 20
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
- 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 1,009
- 2021FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Datacited by 562
- 2022CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Testscited by 384
- 2020IntelliCode Compose: Code Generation Using Transformercited by 227
- 2022GitHub Copilot AI pair programmer: Asset or Liability?cited by 152
- 2023An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPTcited by 110
- 2023Is ChatGPT the Ultimate Programming Assistant -- How far is it?cited by 76
8 more
- 2021Neural Program Repair with Execution-based Backpropagationcited by 50
- 2023Conversational Automated Program Repaircited by 41
- 2021Automatic Program Repair with OpenAI's Codex: Evaluating QuixBugscited by 25
- 2020Evaluating Representation Learning of Code Changes for Predicting Patch Correctness in Program Repaircited by 22
- 2022DEAR: A Novel Deep Learning-based Approach for Automated Program Repaircited by 22
- 2023KNOD: Domain Knowledge Distilled Tree Decoder for Automated Program Repaircited by 13
- 2022Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Modelscited by 3
- 2022An Empirical Evaluation of Competitive Programming AI: A Case Study of AlphaCodecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
- 2024Bugs in Large Language Models Generated Code: An Empirical Studycited by 60
- 2024Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instructioncited by 42
- 2023Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluatorscited by 25
- 2025LLM-ProS: Analyzing Large Language Models' Performance in Competitive Problem Solvingcited by 6
- 2023Intent Detection and Slot Filling for Home Assistants: Dataset and Analysis for Bangla and Sylheticited by 3
- 2026"If You're Very Clever, No One Knows You've Used It": The Social Dynamics of Developing Generative AI Literacy in the Workplacecited by 2
- 2025Towards Adaptive Software Agents for Debuggingcited by 1
- 2025ChatGPT vs. DeepSeek: A Comparative Study on AI-Based Code Generationcited by 0
- 2026"If You're Very Clever, No One Knows You've Used It": The Social Dynamics of Developing Generative AI Literacy in the Workplace1 Feb 2026
- 2025Towards Adaptive Software Agents for Debugging25 Apr 2025
- 2025LLM-ProS: Analyzing Large Language Models' Performance in Competitive Problem Solving4 Feb 2025
- 2025ChatGPT vs. DeepSeek: A Comparative Study on AI-Based Code Generation30 Jan 2025
- 2024Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instruction31 Aug 2024
- 2024Bugs in Large Language Models Generated Code: An Empirical Study13 Mar 2024
- 2023Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators4 Dec 2023
- 2023Intent Detection and Slot Filling for Home Assistants: Dataset and Analysis for Bangla and Sylheti17 Oct 2023
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review21 Aug 2023