# Evaluating ChatGPT-3.5 Efficiency in Solving Coding Problems of Different Complexity Levels: An Empirical Analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07529 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07529/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04023/) (2023)
- [Towards Better Chain-of-Thought Prompting Strategies: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04959/) (2023)
- [Think Outside the Code: Brainstorming Boosts Large Language Models in Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10679/) (2023)
- [LLM for Test Script Generation and Migration: Challenges, Capabilities, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13574/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Empowering AI to Generate Better AI Code: Guided Generation of Deep Learning Projects with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15080/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) promise to revolutionize software development by automatically generating code from program specifications. We assess the performance of ChatGPT's GPT-3.5-turbo model on LeetCode, a popular platform with algorithmic coding challenges for technical interview practice, across three difficulty levels: easy, medium, and hard. We test three main hypotheses. First, ChatGPT solves fewer problems as difficulty rises (Hypothesis 1). Second, prompt engineering improves ChatGPT's performance, with greater gains on easier problems and diminishing returns on harder ones (Hypothesis 2). Third, ChatGPT performs better in popular languages like Python, Java, and C++ than in less common ones like Elixir, Erlang, and Racket (Hypothesis 3). To investigate these hypotheses, we conduct automated experiments using Python scripts to generate prompts that instruct ChatGPT to create Python solutions. These solutions are stored and manually submitted on LeetCode to check their correctness. For Hypothesis 1, results show the GPT-3.5-turbo model successfully solves 92% of easy, 79% of medium, and 51% of hard problems. For Hypothesis 2, prompt engineering yields improvements: 14-29% for Chain of Thought Prompting, 38-60% by providing failed test cases in a second feedback prompt, and 33-58% by switching to GPT-4. From a random subset of problems ChatGPT solved in Python, it also solved 78% in Java, 50% in C++, and none in Elixir, Erlang, or Racket. These findings generally validate all three hypotheses.