This paper proposes a pipeline for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available dataset. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using Big-Vul covering five different common software vulnerability tasks. We evaluate the multitask and multilingual aspects of ChatGPT based on this dataset. We found that the existing state-of-the-art methods are generally superior to ChatGPT in software vulnerability detection. Although ChatGPT improves accuracy when providing context information, it still has limitations in accurately predicting severity ratings for certain CWE types. In addition, ChatGPT demonstrates some ability in locating vulnerabilities for certain CWE types, but its performance varies among different CWE types. ChatGPT exhibits limited vulnerability repair capabilities in both providing and not providing context information. Finally, ChatGPT shows uneven performance in generating CVE descriptions for various CWE types, with limited accuracy in detailed information. Overall, though ChatGPT performs well in some aspects, it still needs improvement in understanding the subtle differences in code vulnerabilities and the abili
The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm in Software Engineering (SE), with generative AI tools like ChatGPT gaining widespread adoption among developers. While ChatGPT's potential has been extensively discussed, empirical evidence about how developers actually use LLMs' assistance in real-world practices remains limited. To bridge this gap, we conducted a large-scale empirical analysis of ChatGPT usage on GitHub, and we presented DevChat, a curated dataset of 2,547 publicly shared ChatGPT conversation links collected from GitHub between May 2023 and June 2024. Through comprehensively analyzing DevChat, we explored the characteristics of developer-ChatGPT interaction patterns and identified five key categories of developers' purposes for sharing developer-ChatGPT conversations during software development. Additionally, we investigated the dominant development-related activities in which ChatGPT is used, and presented a mapping framework that links GitHub data sources, development-related activities, and SE tasks. The findings show that interactions are typically short and task-focused (most are 1-3 turns); developers share conversations mainly to del
ChatGPT, an Artificial Intelligence model, has the potential to revolutionize education. However, its effectiveness in solving non-English questions remains uncertain. This study evaluates ChatGPT's robustness using 586 Korean mathematics questions. ChatGPT achieves 66.72% accuracy, correctly answering 391 out of 586 questions. We also assess its ability to rate mathematics questions based on eleven criteria and perform a topic analysis. Our findings show that ChatGPT's ratings align with educational theory and test-taker perspectives. While ChatGPT performs well in question classification, it struggles with non-English contexts, highlighting areas for improvement. Future research should address linguistic biases and enhance accuracy across diverse languages. Domain-specific optimizations and multilingual training could improve ChatGPT's role in personalized education.
The way users acquire information is undergoing a paradigm shift with the advent of ChatGPT. Unlike conventional search engines, ChatGPT retrieves knowledge from the model itself and generates answers for users. ChatGPT's impressive question-answering (QA) capability has attracted more than 100 million users within a short period of time but has also raised concerns regarding its reliability. In this paper, we perform the first large-scale measurement of ChatGPT's reliability in the generic QA scenario with a carefully curated set of 5,695 questions across ten datasets and eight domains. We find that ChatGPT's reliability varies across different domains, especially underperforming in law and science questions. We also demonstrate that system roles, originally designed by OpenAI to allow users to steer ChatGPT's behavior, can impact ChatGPT's reliability in an imperceptible way. We further show that ChatGPT is vulnerable to adversarial examples, and even a single character change can negatively affect its reliability in certain cases. We believe that our study provides valuable insights into ChatGPT's reliability and underscores the need for strengthening the reliability and securit
Text and audio simplification to increase information comprehension are important in healthcare. With the introduction of ChatGPT, an evaluation of its simplification performance is needed. We provide a systematic comparison of human and ChatGPT simplified texts using fourteen metrics indicative of text difficulty. We briefly introduce our online editor where these simplification tools, including ChatGPT, are available. We scored twelve corpora using our metrics: six text, one audio, and five ChatGPT simplified corpora. We then compare these corpora with texts simplified and verified in a prior user study. Finally, a medical domain expert evaluated these texts and five, new ChatGPT simplified versions. We found that simple corpora show higher similarity with the human simplified texts. ChatGPT simplification moves metrics in the right direction. The medical domain expert evaluation showed a preference for the ChatGPT style, but the text itself was rated lower for content retention.
This study considers ChatGPT as an information source, investigating the information needs that people come to ChatGPT with and the information practices that ChatGPT supports, through a qualitative content analysis of 205 user vignettes. The findings show that ChatGPT is used in a range of life domains (home/family, work, leisure, etc.) and for a range of human needs (writing/editing, learning, simple programming tasks, etc.), constituting the information needs that people use ChatGPT to address. Related to these information needs, the findings show six categories of information practices that ChatGPT supports: Writing, Deciding, Identifying, Ideating, Talking, and Critiquing. This work suggests that, in the AI age, information need should be conceptualized not just as a matter of "getting questions answered" or even "making sense," but as skillfully coping in the world, a notion that includes both understanding and action. This study leads to numerous opportunities for future work at the junction of generative AI and information needs, seeking, use and experience.
Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown the potential to assist developers with coding and debugging tasks. However, their role in collaborative issue resolution is underexplored. In this study, we analyzed 1,152 Developer-ChatGPT conversations across 1,012 issues in GitHub to examine the diverse usage of ChatGPT and reliance on its generated code. Our contributions are fourfold. First, we manually analyzed 289 conversations to understand ChatGPT's usage in the GitHub Issues. Our analysis revealed that ChatGPT is primarily utilized for ideation, whereas its usage for validation (e.g., code documentation accuracy) is minimal. Second, we applied BERTopic modeling to identify key areas of engagement on the entire dataset. We found that backend issues (e.g., API management) dominate conversations, while testing is surprisingly less covered. Third, we utilized the CPD clone detection tool to check if the code generated by ChatGPT was used to address issues. Our findings revealed that ChatGPT-generated code was used as-is to resolve only 5.83\% of the issues. Fourth, we estimated sentiment using a RoBERTa-based sentiment analysis model to determine developers' satisfaction w
Recently, the emergence of ChatGPT has attracted wide attention from the computational linguistics community. Many prior studies have shown that ChatGPT achieves remarkable performance on various NLP tasks in terms of automatic evaluation metrics. However, the ability of ChatGPT to serve as an evaluation metric is still underexplored. Considering assessing the quality of natural language generation (NLG) models is an arduous task and NLG metrics notoriously show their poor correlation with human judgments, we wonder whether ChatGPT is a good NLG evaluation metric. In this report, we provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. In detail, we regard ChatGPT as a human evaluator and give task-specific (e.g., summarization) and aspect-specific (e.g., relevance) instruction to prompt ChatGPT to evaluate the generated results of NLG models. We conduct experiments on five NLG meta-evaluation datasets (including summarization, story generation and data-to-text tasks). Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments in most cases. In additi
ChatGPT has changed the AI community and an active research line is the performance evaluation of ChatGPT. A key challenge for the evaluation is that ChatGPT is still closed-source and traditional benchmark datasets may have been used by ChatGPT as the training data. In this paper, (i) we survey recent studies which uncover the real performance levels of ChatGPT in seven categories of NLP tasks, (ii) review the social implications and safety issues of ChatGPT, and (iii) emphasize key challenges and opportunities for its evaluation. We hope our survey can shed some light on its blackbox manner, so that researchers are not misleaded by its surface generation.
This study investigates the potential of using ChatGPT as a teachable agent to support students' learning by teaching process, specifically in programming education. While learning by teaching is an effective pedagogical strategy for promoting active learning, traditional teachable agents have limitations, particularly in facilitating natural language dialogue. Our research explored whether ChatGPT, with its ability to engage learners in natural conversations, can support this process. The findings reveal that interacting with ChatGPT improves students' knowledge gains and programming abilities, particularly in writing readable and logically sound code. However, it had limited impact on developing learners' error-correction skills, likely because ChatGPT tends to generate correct code, reducing opportunities for students to practice debugging. Additionally, students' self-regulated learning (SRL) abilities improved, suggesting that teaching ChatGPT fosters learners' higher self-efficacy and better implementation of SRL strategies. This study discussed the role of natural dialogue in fostering socialized learning by teaching, and explored ChatGPT's specific contributions in supporti
ChatGPT has gained both positive and negative publicity after reports suggesting that it is able to pass various professional and licensing examinations. This suggests that ChatGPT may pass Turing Test in the near future. However, a computer program that passing Turing Test can either mean that it is a Chinese Room or artificially conscious. Hence, the question of whether the current state of ChatGPT is more of a Chinese Room or approaching artificial consciousness remains. Here, I demonstrate that the current version of ChatGPT (Feb 13 version) is a Chinese Room. Despite potential evidence of cognitive connections, ChatGPT exhibits critical errors in causal reasoning. At the same time, I demonstrate that ChatGPT can generate all possible categorical responses to the same question and response with erroneous examples; thus, questioning its utility as a learning tool. I also show that ChatGPT is capable of artificial hallucination, which is defined as generating confidently wrong replies. It is likely that errors in causal reasoning leads to hallucinations. More critically, ChatGPT generates false references to mimic real publications. Therefore, its utility is cautioned.
Recently, ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. Several prior studies have shown that ChatGPT attains remarkable generation ability compared with existing models. However, the quantitative analysis of ChatGPT's understanding ability has been given little attention. In this report, we explore the understanding ability of ChatGPT by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question-answering tasks. Additionally, by combining some advanced prompting strategies, we show that the understanding ability of ChatGPT can be further improved.
Purpose: Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Design/methodology/approach: Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. Findings: ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author's significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articl
This bachelor's thesis examines the capabilities of ChatGPT 4 in code generation across 19 programming languages. The study analyzed solution rates across three difficulty levels, types of errors encountered, and code quality in terms of runtime and memory efficiency through a quantitative experiment. A total of 188 programming problems were selected from the LeetCode platform, and ChatGPT 4 was given three attempts to produce a correct solution with feedback. ChatGPT 4 successfully solved 39.67% of all tasks, with success rates decreasing significantly as problem complexity increased. Notably, the model faced considerable challenges with hard problems across all languages. ChatGPT 4 demonstrated higher competence in widely used languages, likely due to a larger volume and higher quality of training data. The solution rates also revealed a preference for languages with low abstraction levels and static typing. For popular languages, the most frequent error was "Wrong Answer," whereas for less popular languages, compiler and runtime errors prevailed, suggesting frequent misunderstandings and confusion regarding the structural characteristics of these languages. The model exhibited a
We conducted a survey of 135 software engineering (SE) practitioners to understand how they use Generative AI-based chatbots like ChatGPT for SE tasks. We find that they want to use ChatGPT for SE tasks like software library selection but often worry about the truthfulness of ChatGPT responses. We developed a suite of techniques and a tool called CID (ChatGPT Incorrectness Detector) to automatically test and detect the incorrectness in ChatGPT responses. CID is based on the iterative prompting to ChatGPT by asking it contextually similar but textually divergent questions (using an approach that utilizes metamorphic relationships in texts). The underlying principle in CID is that for a given question, a response that is different from other responses (across multiple incarnations of the question) is likely an incorrect response. In a benchmark study of library selection, we show that CID can detect incorrect responses from ChatGPT with an F1-score of 0.74 - 0.75.
In recent years, advanced artificial intelligence technologies, such as ChatGPT, have significantly impacted various fields, including education and research. Developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT is a powerful language model that presents numerous opportunities for students and educators. It offers personalized feedback, enhances accessibility, enables interactive conversations, assists with lesson preparation and evaluation, and introduces new methods for teaching complex subjects. However, ChatGPT also poses challenges to traditional education and research systems. These challenges include the risk of cheating on online exams, the generation of human-like text that may compromise academic integrity, a potential decline in critical thinking skills, and difficulties in assessing the reliability of information generated by AI. This study examines both the opportunities and challenges ChatGPT brings to education from the perspectives of students and educators. Specifically, it explores the role of ChatGPT in helping students develop their subjective skills. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we conducted several subjective experiments using ChatGPT, such as generating solutions from subjectiv
The remarkable capabilities of large-scale language models, such as ChatGPT, in text generation have impressed readers and spurred researchers to devise detectors to mitigate potential risks, including misinformation, phishing, and academic dishonesty. Despite this, most previous studies have been predominantly geared towards creating detectors that differentiate between purely ChatGPT-generated texts and human-authored texts. This approach, however, fails to work on discerning texts generated through human-machine collaboration, such as ChatGPT-polished texts. Addressing this gap, we introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts), facilitating the construction of more robust detectors. It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. Additionally, we propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text. It provides a mechanism to measure the degree of ChatGPT influence in the resulting text. Our experimental results show our proposed model has better robustness on the
The introduction of ChatGPT has garnered widespread attention in both academic and industrial communities. ChatGPT is able to respond effectively to a wide range of human questions, providing fluent and comprehensive answers that significantly surpass previous public chatbots in terms of security and usefulness. On one hand, people are curious about how ChatGPT is able to achieve such strength and how far it is from human experts. On the other hand, people are starting to worry about the potential negative impacts that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT could have on society, such as fake news, plagiarism, and social security issues. In this work, we collected tens of thousands of comparison responses from both human experts and ChatGPT, with questions ranging from open-domain, financial, medical, legal, and psychological areas. We call the collected dataset the Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpus (HC3). Based on the HC3 dataset, we study the characteristics of ChatGPT's responses, the differences and gaps from human experts, and future directions for LLMs. We conducted comprehensive human evaluations and linguistic analyses of ChatGPT-generated content compared with that of hum
Generative AI proposes several large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate a message in response to users' requests. Such scientific breakthroughs promote new writing assistants but with some fears. The main focus of this study is to analyze the written style of one LLM called ChatGPT by comparing its generated messages with those of the recent French presidents. To achieve this, we compare end-of-the-year addresses written by Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande, and Macron with those automatically produced by ChatGPT. We found that ChatGPT tends to overuse nouns, possessive determiners, and numbers. On the other hand, the generated speeches employ less verbs, pronouns, and adverbs and include, in mean, too standardized sentences. Considering some words, one can observe that ChatGPT tends to overuse "to must" (devoir), "to continue" or the lemma "we" (nous). Moreover, GPT underuses the auxiliary verb "to be" (^etre), or the modal verbs "to will" (vouloir) or "to have to" (falloir). In addition, when a short text is provided as example to ChatGPT, the machine can generate a short message with a style closed to the original wording. Finally, we reveal that ChatGPT style exposes dist
Causal reasoning ability is crucial for numerous NLP applications. Despite the impressive emerging ability of ChatGPT in various NLP tasks, it is unclear how well ChatGPT performs in causal reasoning. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive evaluation of the ChatGPT's causal reasoning capabilities. Experiments show that ChatGPT is not a good causal reasoner, but a good causal explainer. Besides, ChatGPT has a serious hallucination on causal reasoning, possibly due to the reporting biases between causal and non-causal relationships in natural language, as well as ChatGPT's upgrading processes, such as RLHF. The In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques can further exacerbate such causal hallucination. Additionally, the causal reasoning ability of ChatGPT is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts, and close-ended prompts perform better than open-ended prompts. For events in sentences, ChatGPT excels at capturing explicit causality rather than implicit causality, and performs better in sentences with lower event density and smaller lexical distance between events. The code is available on https://github.com/ArrogantL/ChatGP