mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Ocassionally Secure: A Comparative Analysis of Code Generation Assistants

arXiv 2402.00689 ↗First posted 1 Feb 2024cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly utilized in various applications, with code generations being a notable example. While previous research has shown that LLMs have the capability to generate both secure and insecure code, the literature does not take into account what factors help generate secure and effective code. Therefore in this paper we focus on identifying and understanding the conditions and contexts in which LLMs can be effectively and safely deployed in real-world scenarios to generate quality code. We conducted a comparative analysis of four advanced LLMs--GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using ChatGPT and Bard and Gemini from Google--using 9 separate tasks to assess each model's code generation capabilities. We contextualized our study to represent the typical use cases of a real-life developer employing LLMs for everyday tasks as work. Additionally, we place an emphasis on security awareness which is represented through the use of two distinct versions of our developer persona. In total, we collected 61 code outputs and analyzed them across several aspects: functionality, security, performance, complexity, and reliability. These insights are crucial for understanding the models' capabilities and limitations, guiding future development and practical applications in the field of automated code generation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2024.

Builds on

20 of 43 references.

References · 20

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  4. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
  5. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  6. 2022LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applicationscited by 1,218
  7. 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
  8. 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 612
  9. 2022A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models of Codecited by 360
  10. 2023Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Modelscited by 356
  11. 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 186
  12. 2023Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Code Generationcited by 136
8 more
  1. 2023Extracting Accurate Materials Data from Research Papers with Conversational Language Models and Prompt Engineeringcited by 86
  2. 2023Can ChatGPT replace StackOverflow? A Study on Robustness and Reliability of Large Language Model Code Generationcited by 72
  3. 2023Evaluating the Zero-shot Robustness of Instruction-tuned Language Modelscited by 63
  4. 2023CodeLMSec Benchmark: Systematically Evaluating and Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Black-Box Code Language Modelscited by 52
  5. 2023SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Codecited by 35
  6. 2023Enhancing Large Language Models for Secure Code Generation: A Dataset-driven Study on Vulnerability Mitigationcited by 14
  7. 2019An Empirical Study of C++ Vulnerabilities in Crowd-Sourced Code Examplescited by 7
  8. 2021I Know What You Imported Last Summer: A study of security threats in thePython ecosystemcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.