# Can OpenSource beat ChatGPT? -- A Comparative Study of Large Language Models for Text-to-Code Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04164 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04164/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08155/) (2020)
- [LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08239/) (2022)
- [An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.08653/) (2023)
- [Automatic Code Summarization via ChatGPT: How Far Are We?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12865/) (2023)
- [A Critical Review of Large Language Model on Software Engineering: An Example from ChatGPT and Automated Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08879/) (2023)
- [A Comparative Study of Code Generation using ChatGPT 3.5 across 10 Programming Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04477/) (2023)
- [Can ChatGPT Pass An Introductory Level Functional Language Programming Course?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02230/) (2023)
- [A Preliminary Analysis on the Code Generation Capabilities of GPT-3.5 and Bard AI Models for Java Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09402/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools with potential applications in various fields, including software engineering. Within the scope of this research, we evaluate five different state-of-the-art LLMs - Bard, BingChat, ChatGPT, Llama2, and Code Llama - concerning their capabilities for text-to-code generation. In an empirical study, we feed prompts with textual descriptions of coding problems sourced from the programming website LeetCode to the models with the task of creating solutions in Python. Subsequently, the quality of the generated outputs is assessed using the testing functionalities of LeetCode. The results indicate large differences in performance between the investigated models. ChatGPT can handle these typical programming challenges by far the most effectively, surpassing even code-specialized models like Code Llama. To gain further insights, we measure the runtime as well as the memory usage of the generated outputs and compared them to the other code submissions on Leetcode. A detailed error analysis, encompassing a comparison of the differences concerning correct indentation and form of the generated code as well as an assignment of the incorrectly solved tasks to certain error categories allows us to obtain a more nuanced picture of the results and potential for improvement. The results also show a clear pattern of increasingly incorrect produced code when the models are facing a lot of context in the form of longer prompts.