Uncovering Weaknesses in Neural Code Generation

Code generation, the task of producing source code from prompts, has seen significant advancements with the advent of pre-trained LLMs (PLMs). Despite these achievements, there lacks a comprehensive taxonomy of weaknesses about the benchmark and the generated code, which risks the community's focus on known issues at the cost of under-explored areas. Our systematic study aims to fill this gap by evaluating five state-of-the-art PLMs: three larger models, CodeGen2.5 with 7 billion parameters, CodeGeeX2 with 6 billion parameters, GPT-4 Turbo, and two smaller ones, UnixCoder with 110 million parameters and CodeT5 base with 220 million parameters, across three popular datasets, CoNaLa, HumanEval Plus, and DS-1000. We assess the quality of generated code using match-based and execution-based metrics, then conduct thematic analysis to develop a taxonomy of nine types of weaknesses. We dissected weakness distributions in both larger and smaller models, applying an extensive methodology that encompasses model-specific as well as collective analysis (union and intersection) across models. Our research uncovers three salient findings: 1. In the CoNaLa dataset, inaccurate prompts are a notable problem, causing all large models to fail in 26.84% of cases, with even higher failure rates of 40% for smaller models; 2. Missing pivotal semantics is a pervasive issue across benchmarks, with one or more large models omitting key semantics in 65.78% of CoNaLa tasks, and similarly high occurrences in HumanEval Plus (66.09%) and DS-1000 (80.51%); 3. All models struggle with proper API usage, a challenge amplified by vague or complex prompts. Our findings aim to steer researchers towards addressing specific weaknesses and challenges in code generation. Furthermore, our annotations can offer a targeted benchmark subset for detailed analysis.