Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2411.02093

Do Advanced Language Models Eliminate the Need for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering?

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced software engineering (SE) tasks, with prompt engineering techniques enhancing their performance in code-related areas. However, the rapid development of foundational LLMs such as the non-reasoning model GPT-4o and the reasoning model o1 raises questions about the continued effectiveness of these prompt engineering techniques. This paper presents an extensive empirical study that reevaluates various prompt engineering techniques within the context of these advanced LLMs. Focusing on three representative SE tasks, i.e., code generation, code translation, and code summarization, we assess whether prompt engineering techniques still yield improvements with advanced models, the actual effectiveness of reasoning models compared to non-reasoning models, and whether the benefits of using these advanced models justify their increased costs. Our findings reveal that prompt engineering techniques developed for earlier LLMs may provide diminished benefits or even hinder performance when applied to advanced models. In reasoning LLMs, the ability of sophisticated built-in reasoning reduces the impact of complex prompts, sometimes making simple zero-shot prompting more effective. Furthermore, while reasoning models outperform non-reasoning models in tasks requiring complex reasoning, they offer minimal advantages in tasks that do not need reasoning and may incur unnecessary costs. Based on our study, we provide practical guidance for practitioners on selecting appropriate prompt engineering techniques and foundational LLMs, considering factors such as task requirements, operational costs, and environmental impact. Our work contributes to a deeper understanding of effectively harnessing advanced LLMs in SE tasks, informing future research and application development.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Guoqing Wang, Zeyu Sun, Zhihao Gong, Sixiang Ye, Yizhou Chen, Yifan Zhao, Qingyuan Liang, Dan Hao. 2024-11-04. Do Advanced Language Models Eliminate the Need for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02093

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