Files
Zotero-Thesis/storage/AE8HHNYJ/.zotero-ft-cache
fzzinchemical 02b00ee108 update
2026-01-22 22:01:07 +01:00

57 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters
This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
Skip to main content
Computer Science > Software Engineering
[Submitted on 14 Aug 2024 (v1), last revised 8 Jul 2025 (this version, v2)]
CodeMirage: Hallucinations in Code Generated by Large Language Models
Vibhor Agarwal, Yulong Pei, Salwa Alamir, Xiaomo Liu
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising potentials in program generation and no-code automation. However, LLMs are prone to generate hallucinations, i.e., they generate text which sounds plausible but is incorrect. Although there has been a recent surge in research on LLM hallucinations for text generation, similar hallucination phenomenon can happen in code generation. Sometimes the generated code can have syntactical or logical errors as well as more advanced issues like security vulnerabilities, memory leaks, etc. Given the wide adaptation of LLMs to enhance efficiency in code generation and development in general, it becomes imperative to investigate hallucinations in code generation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt at studying hallucinations in the code generated by LLMs. We start by introducing the code hallucination definition and a comprehensive taxonomy of code hallucination types. We propose the first benchmark CodeMirage dataset for code hallucinations. The benchmark contains 1,137 GPT-3.5 generated hallucinated code snippets for Python programming problems from two base datasets - HumanEval and MBPP. We then propose the methodology for code hallucination detection and experiment with open source LLMs such as CodeLLaMA as well as OpenAI's GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models using one-shot prompt. We find that GPT-4 performs the best on HumanEval dataset and gives comparable results to the fine-tuned CodeBERT baseline on MBPP dataset. Towards the end, we discuss various mitigation strategies for code hallucinations and conclude our work.
Comments: Accepted at AutoMates @ IJCAI 2024
Subjects: Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2408.08333 [cs.SE]
  (or arXiv:2408.08333v2 [cs.SE] for this version)
 
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.08333
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Vibhor Agarwal [view email]
[v1] Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:53:07 UTC (85 KB)
[v2] Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:14:43 UTC (28 KB)
Access Paper:
View PDFHTML (experimental)TeX Source
view license
Current browse context: cs.SE
< prev next >
newrecent2024-08
Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
About
Help
Contact
Subscribe
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Web Accessibility Assistance
arXiv Operational Status