Evaluating AI-generated code for C++, Fortran, Go, Java, Julia, Matlab, Python, R, and Rust
Tags: machinelearning, ai, beginners, datascience
Published: 2024-06-04 12:24:46

*This is a Plain English Papers summary of a research paper called [Evaluating AI-generated code for C++, Fortran, Go, Java, Julia, Matlab, Python, R, and Rust](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluating-ai-generated-code-c-fortran-go). If you like these kinds of analysis, you should subscribe to the [AImodels.fyi newsletter](https://aimodels.substack.com) or follow me on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/mikeyoung44).*

## Overview

- This study evaluates the ability of ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 to generate code across various programming languages.
- The goal is to assess the effectiveness of these AI models for generating scientific programs.
- The researchers asked ChatGPT to generate three different codes: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel 1D stencil-based heat equation solver.
- The analysis focused on the compilation, runtime performance, and accuracy of the generated codes.

## Plain English Explanation

The researchers wanted to understand how well the AI language model [ChatGPT](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/survey-real-power-chatgpt) could write computer programs in different programming languages. They tested two versions of ChatGPT, 3.5 and 4, by asking the AI to generate three specific types of scientific code: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel heat equation solver.

The researchers were interested in how well the generated code would compile, how fast it would run, and how accurate the results would be. They found that both versions of ChatGPT were able to create code that could be compiled and run, but some languages were easier for the AI to work with than others. This may be because the training data used to teach ChatGPT had more examples in some languages than others.

The researchers also discovered that the parallel heat equation solver code, even though it was a relatively simple example, was particularly challenging for ChatGPT to generate correctly. Parallel programming, where multiple parts of a program run at the same time, seems to be an area where the AI still struggles.

## Technical Explanation

The researchers in this study [evaluated the capabilities of ChatGPT](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluation-chatgpt-usability-as-code-generation-tool) versions 3.5 and 4 in generating code across a range of programming languages. Their goal was to assess the effectiveness of these large language models for generating scientific programs.

To do this, they asked ChatGPT to generate three different types of code: a simple numerical integration, a conjugate gradient solver, and a parallel 1D stencil-based heat equation solver. The researchers then analyzed the compilation, runtime performance, and accuracy of the generated code.

They found that both versions of ChatGPT were able to successfully create code that could be compiled and run, with some help. However, the researchers noted that [some programming languages were easier for the AI to use than others](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/cross-language-assessment-mathematical-capability-chatgpt), potentially due to differences in the size of the training sets used.

Additionally, the researchers discovered that [generating parallel code, even for a relatively simple example](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluation-programming-skills-large-language-models), was particularly challenging for ChatGPT. This suggests that [complex algorithmic reasoning and programming skills](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/benchmarking-chatgpt-algorithmic-reasoning) are still areas where large language models like ChatGPT have room for improvement.

## Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several caveats and limitations in their study. For instance, they note that the performance of ChatGPT may have been influenced by the specific prompts and instructions used to generate the code. Additionally, the researchers only tested a limited set of programming tasks, and it's possible that the AI may perform differently on a wider range of programming challenges.

Another potential issue is the reliance on the researchers' own evaluation of the generated code, which could introduce subjective biases. To address this, the researchers could have included a larger panel of expert reviewers or automated testing frameworks to assess the code quality more objectively.

Furthermore, the study does not delve into the underlying reasons why ChatGPT struggled more with certain programming languages or parallel programming tasks. A deeper investigation into the AI's architectural limitations or training data biases could provide valuable insights for [improving the programming capabilities of large language models](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/survey-real-power-chatgpt) like ChatGPT.

## Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT in generating scientific code across a variety of programming languages. While the AI was able to successfully create compilable and runnable code in many cases, the researchers identified areas where ChatGPT still struggles, such as parallel programming and more complex algorithmic reasoning.

These findings have important implications for the potential use of large language models like ChatGPT as code generation tools, particularly in scientific and high-performance computing domains. The study highlights the need for continued research and development to [enhance the programming skills of these AI systems](https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluation-chatgpt-usability-as-code-generation-tool) and make them more reliable and effective for a wider range of programming tasks.

**If you enjoyed this summary, consider subscribing to the [AImodels.fyi newsletter](https://aimodels.substack.com) or following me on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/mikeyoung44) for more AI and machine learning content.**