Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2303.01056

Deep Learning Based Code Generation Methods: Literature Review

Abstract

This paper focuses on Code Generation task that aims at generating relevant code fragments according to given natural language descriptions. In the process of software development, developers often encounter two scenarios. One is requested to write a large amount of repetitive and low-technical code for implementing common functionalities. The other is writing code that depends on specific task requirements, which may necessitate the use of external resources such as documentation or other tools. Therefore, code generation has received a lot of attention among academia and industry for assisting developers in coding. In fact, it has also been one of the key concerns in the field of software engineering to make machines understand users' requirements and write programs on their own. The recent development of deep learning techniques especially pre-training models make the code generation task achieve promising performance. In this paper, we systematically review the current work on deep learning-based code generation and classify the current deep learning-based code generation methods into three categories: methods based on code features, methods incorporated with retrieval, and methods incorporated with post-processing. The first category refers to the methods that use deep learning algorithms for code generation based on code features, and the second and third categories of methods improve the performance of the methods in the first category. In this paper, the existing research results of each category of methods are systematically reviewed, summarized and commented. Besides, the paper summarizes and analyzes the corpus and the popular evaluation metrics used in the existing code generation work. Finally, the paper summarizes the overall literature review and provides a prospect on future research directions worthy of attention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zezhou Yang, Sirong Chen, Cuiyun Gao, Zhenhao Li, Ge Li, Michael Lyu. 2024-04-18. Deep Learning Based Code Generation Methods: Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.13328/j.cnki.jos.006981.

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE