LLMs 仍然无法避免 Instanceof:调查 GPT-3.5、GPT-4 和 Bard 处理面向对象编程作业的能力

ArXiv Pub Date : 2024-03-10 DOI:10.1145/3639474.3640052
Bruno Pereira Cipriano, P. Alves
{"title":"LLMs 仍然无法避免 Instanceof:调查 GPT-3.5、GPT-4 和 Bard 处理面向对象编程作业的能力","authors":"Bruno Pereira Cipriano, P. Alves","doi":"10.1145/3639474.3640052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to assist students while solving programming assignments. However, object-oriented programming (OOP), with its inherent complexity involving the identification of entities, relationships, and responsibilities, is not yet mastered by these tools. Contrary to introductory programming exercises, there exists a research gap with regard to the behavior of LLMs in OOP contexts. In this study, we experimented with three prominent LLMs - GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard - to solve real-world OOP exercises used in educational settings, subsequently validating their solutions using an Automatic Assessment Tool (AAT). The findings revealed that while the models frequently achieved mostly working solutions to the exercises, they often overlooked the best practices of OOP. GPT-4 stood out as the most proficient, followed by GPT-3.5, with Bard trailing last. We advocate for a renewed emphasis on code quality when employing these models and explore the potential of pairing LLMs with AATs in pedagogical settings. In conclusion, while GPT-4 showcases promise, the deployment of these models in OOP education still mandates supervision.","PeriodicalId":513202,"journal":{"name":"ArXiv","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"LLMs Still Can't Avoid Instanceof: An Investigation Into GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and Bard's Capacity to Handle Object-Oriented Programming Assignments\",\"authors\":\"Bruno Pereira Cipriano, P. Alves\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3639474.3640052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to assist students while solving programming assignments. However, object-oriented programming (OOP), with its inherent complexity involving the identification of entities, relationships, and responsibilities, is not yet mastered by these tools. Contrary to introductory programming exercises, there exists a research gap with regard to the behavior of LLMs in OOP contexts. In this study, we experimented with three prominent LLMs - GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard - to solve real-world OOP exercises used in educational settings, subsequently validating their solutions using an Automatic Assessment Tool (AAT). The findings revealed that while the models frequently achieved mostly working solutions to the exercises, they often overlooked the best practices of OOP. GPT-4 stood out as the most proficient, followed by GPT-3.5, with Bard trailing last. We advocate for a renewed emphasis on code quality when employing these models and explore the potential of pairing LLMs with AATs in pedagogical settings. In conclusion, while GPT-4 showcases promise, the deployment of these models in OOP education still mandates supervision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":513202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ArXiv\",\"volume\":\"20 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ArXiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3639474.3640052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ArXiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3639474.3640052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

大型语言模型(LLM)已成为协助学生完成编程作业的理想工具。然而,面向对象编程(OOP)因其固有的复杂性(涉及实体、关系和责任的识别),尚未被这些工具所掌握。与编程入门练习相反,关于 LLM 在 OOP 环境中的行为的研究还存在空白。在本研究中,我们试用了三种著名的 LLM--GPT-3.5、GPT-4 和 Bard--来解决教育环境中使用的实际 OOP 练习,随后使用自动评估工具 (AAT) 验证了它们的解决方案。研究结果表明,虽然这些模型通常都能为练习提供基本可行的解决方案,但它们往往忽略了 OOP 的最佳实践。GPT-4 是最熟练的,其次是 GPT-3.5,而 Bard 则排在最后。我们主张在使用这些模型时重新强调代码质量,并探索在教学环境中将 LLM 与 AAT 配对的可能性。总之,虽然 GPT-4 展示了前景,但在 OOP 教育中部署这些模型仍然需要监督。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
LLMs Still Can't Avoid Instanceof: An Investigation Into GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and Bard's Capacity to Handle Object-Oriented Programming Assignments
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to assist students while solving programming assignments. However, object-oriented programming (OOP), with its inherent complexity involving the identification of entities, relationships, and responsibilities, is not yet mastered by these tools. Contrary to introductory programming exercises, there exists a research gap with regard to the behavior of LLMs in OOP contexts. In this study, we experimented with three prominent LLMs - GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard - to solve real-world OOP exercises used in educational settings, subsequently validating their solutions using an Automatic Assessment Tool (AAT). The findings revealed that while the models frequently achieved mostly working solutions to the exercises, they often overlooked the best practices of OOP. GPT-4 stood out as the most proficient, followed by GPT-3.5, with Bard trailing last. We advocate for a renewed emphasis on code quality when employing these models and explore the potential of pairing LLMs with AATs in pedagogical settings. In conclusion, while GPT-4 showcases promise, the deployment of these models in OOP education still mandates supervision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信