Bonan Kou

Samia Kabir, David N. Udo-Imeh, Bonan Kou et al.

Q&A platforms have been crucial for the online help-seeking behavior of programmers. However, the recent popularity of ChatGPT is altering this trend. Despite this popularity, no comprehensive study has been conducted to evaluate the characteristics of ChatGPT's answers to programming questions. To bridge the gap, we conducted the first in-depth analysis of ChatGPT answers to 517 programming questions on Stack Overflow and examined the correctness, consistency, comprehensiveness, and conciseness of ChatGPT answers. Furthermore, we conducted a large-scale linguistic analysis, as well as a user study, to understand the characteristics of ChatGPT answers from linguistic and human aspects. Our analysis shows that 52% of ChatGPT answers contain incorrect information and 77% are verbose. Nonetheless, our user study participants still preferred ChatGPT answers 35% of the time due to their comprehensiveness and well-articulated language style. However, they also overlooked the misinformation in the ChatGPT answers 39% of the time. This implies the need to counter misinformation in ChatGPT answers to programming questions and raise awareness of the risks associated with seemingly correct answers.

Bonan Kou, Shengmai Chen, Zhijie Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been widely used for code generation. Due to the complexity and opacity of LLMs, little is known about how these models generate code. We made the first attempt to bridge this knowledge gap by investigating whether LLMs attend to the same parts of a task description as human programmers during code generation. An analysis of six LLMs, including GPT-4, on two popular code generation benchmarks revealed a consistent misalignment between LLMs' and programmers' attention. We manually analyzed 211 incorrect code snippets and found five attention patterns that can be used to explain many code generation errors. Finally, a user study showed that model attention computed by a perturbation-based method is often favored by human programmers. Our findings highlight the need for human-aligned LLMs for better interpretability and programmer trust.