Large language models (LLMs) like GPT4, have shown proficiency in generating code snippets from problem statements. Traditionally software development by humans followed a similar methodology of writing code from problem statements or requirements. However, in the past, there have been several studies that have shown the value of test-driven development (TDD) where humans write tests based on problem statements before the code for the functionality is written. In the context of LLM-based code generation, one obvious benefit of TDD is that the developer then knows for sure if the generated code has passed all the given tests or not. Therefore, in this paper, we want to empirically evaluate the hypothesis: giving the problem statements and tests as input to GPT4 is better than just giving the problem statement as input. To test our hypothesis, we build a framework TGen. In our experiments on the MBPP, HumanEval and CodeChef datasets, we consistently find that including tests solves more programming problems than not including them. Thus we show that TDD is a better development model than just using a problem statement when using GPT4 for code generation tasks.
翻译:暂无翻译