The study conducted by Burak Yetiştiren et al. evaluates the code quality of AI-assisted code generation tools, specifically focusing on GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT. These tools have gained popularity in software engineering for their ability to generate code from natural language prompts or partial code inputs. The objective of the study is to compare the performance of these tools in terms of various code quality metrics such as Code Validity, Code Correctness, Code Security, Code Reliability, and Code Maintainability. To assess the capabilities of these prominent code generation tools, the researchers utilized the benchmark HumanEval Dataset. The generated code was then evaluated based on the proposed code quality metrics to determine their strengths and shortcomings. The results of the analysis indicate that the latest versions of ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, and Amazon CodeWhisperer generate correct code 65.2%, 46.3%, and 31.1% of the time respectively. Furthermore, it was observed that newer versions of GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer showed improvement rates of 18% and 7% respectively in generating correct code. The average technical debt, considering code smells, was found to be 8.9 minutes for ChatGPT, 9.1 minutes for GitHub Copilot, and 5.6 minutes for Amazon CodeWhisperer. In conclusion, this study highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of these popular code generation tools providing valuable insights for practitioners in software development. By comparing these generators based on their performance metrics, practitioners can make informed decisions when selecting an optimal tool for specific tasks thereby enhancing their decision-making process in software engineering projects.
- - The study evaluates code quality of AI-assisted code generation tools: GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT.
- - Tools generate code from natural language prompts or partial code inputs.
- - Objective is to compare performance in terms of various code quality metrics: Code Validity, Code Correctness, Code Security, Code Reliability, and Code Maintainability.
- - Researchers used benchmark HumanEval Dataset to assess capabilities of tools.
- - Results show correct code generation rates: ChatGPT 65.2%, GitHub Copilot 46.3%, Amazon CodeWhisperer 31.1%.
- - Newer versions of GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer showed improvement rates in generating correct code.
- - Average technical debt (considering code smells): ChatGPT 8.9 minutes, GitHub Copilot 9.1 minutes, Amazon CodeWhisperer 5.6 minutes.
- - Study highlights strengths and weaknesses of these popular tools for practitioners in software development.
- - Comparing performance metrics can help practitioners select optimal tool for specific tasks in software engineering projects.
Summary- Some tools like GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT help create computer code.
- These tools make code by reading human language or looking at existing code pieces.
- People want to see which tool makes the best quality code in terms of correctness, security, reliability, and maintainability.
- Researchers used a special test to check how well these tools work.
- The results show that ChatGPT is good at making correct code, while newer versions of GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer are getting better.
Definitions- Code quality: How good and reliable a piece of computer code is.
- AI-assisted: Tools that use artificial intelligence to help with tasks like writing code.
- Metrics: Measurements used to compare different things.
- Benchmark: A standard or test used for comparison purposes.
- Technical debt: Work needed to fix issues in the code that can cause problems later on.
Introduction
In recent years, the field of software engineering has seen a rise in the use of AI-assisted code generation tools. These tools have gained popularity for their ability to generate code from natural language prompts or partial code inputs, making it easier and faster for developers to write complex code. However, with this increased reliance on AI-generated code, there is a growing concern about its quality and reliability.
To address this concern, Burak Yetiştiren et al. conducted a study to evaluate the performance of three prominent AI-assisted code generation tools - GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT. The objective of the study was to compare these tools based on various code quality metrics such as Code Validity, Code Correctness, Code Security, Code Reliability, and Code Maintainability.
Methodology
To assess the capabilities of these popular code generation tools, the researchers utilized the benchmark HumanEval Dataset. This dataset consists of 1 million lines of human-written Python source codes that are used as ground truth for evaluating generated codes. The researchers then created prompts using natural language descriptions from Stack Overflow posts and inputted them into each tool to generate corresponding codes.
The generated codes were then evaluated based on five proposed metrics - Code Validity (whether the generated code can be compiled without errors), Code Correctness (whether it produces correct outputs), Code Security (whether it contains any security vulnerabilities), Code Reliability (the number of bugs found in generated code), and Code Maintainability (the amount of technical debt incurred).
Results
The results showed that ChatGPT had an overall accuracy rate of 65.2%, followed by GitHub Copilot at 46.3% and Amazon CodeWhisperer at 31.1%. This indicates that ChatGPT performed better in generating correct codes compared to other two tools.
Furthermore, when comparing newer versions with older versions within each tool's performance, it was observed that GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer showed improvement rates of 18% and 7%, respectively. This suggests that these tools are continuously improving their code generation capabilities.
In terms of technical debt, which is a measure of the amount of effort required to maintain or improve the generated code, ChatGPT had an average technical debt of 8.9 minutes per line of code, followed by GitHub Copilot at 9.1 minutes and Amazon CodeWhisperer at 5.6 minutes. This indicates that Amazon CodeWhisperer generates more maintainable code compared to the other two tools.
Discussion
The results from this study highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of these popular AI-assisted code generation tools. While ChatGPT performed better in generating correct codes, it also incurred higher technical debt compared to other tools. On the other hand, Amazon CodeWhisperer generated more maintainable code but had a lower accuracy rate.
These findings provide valuable insights for practitioners in software development when selecting an optimal tool for specific tasks. By considering factors such as accuracy rate, technical debt, and maintainability, developers can make informed decisions on which tool would be most suitable for their project needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research paper evaluates the performance of three prominent AI-assisted code generation tools - GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT - based on various code quality metrics using the HumanEval Dataset as ground truth. The results show that while all three tools have their strengths and shortcomings in terms of generating correct codes and maintaining its quality over time.
This study serves as a starting point for further research in this area as AI-assisted code generation continues to evolve rapidly. It also highlights the importance of evaluating these tools based on multiple metrics rather than just one aspect to get a comprehensive understanding of their capabilities.
Overall, this research provides valuable insights for practitioners in software development, enabling them to make informed decisions when selecting an optimal code generation tool for their projects. By considering the strengths and weaknesses of these tools, developers can enhance their decision-making process and ultimately improve the quality of their software.