An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation

115Citations
Citations of this article
98Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

There has been a recent explosion of research on Large Language Models (LLMs) for software engineering tasks, in particular code generation. However, results from LLMs can be highly unstable; non-deterministically returning very different code for the same prompt. Such non-determinism affects the correctness and consistency of the generated code, undermines developers' trust in LLMs, and yields low reproducibility in LLM-based papers. Nevertheless, there is no work investigating how serious this non-determinism threat is. To fill this gap, this article conducts an empirical study on the non-determinism of ChatGPT in code generation. We chose to study ChatGPT because it is already highly prevalent in the code generation research literature. We report results from a study of 829 code generation problems across three code generation benchmarks (i.e., CodeContests, APPS and HumanEval) with three aspects of code similarities: semantic similarity, syntactic similarity, and structural similarity. Our results reveal that ChatGPT exhibits a high degree of non-determinism under the default setting: the ratio of coding tasks with zero equal test output across different requests is 75.76%, 51.00% and 47.56% for three different code generation datasets (i.e., CodeContests, APPS and HumanEval), respectively. In addition, we find that setting the temperature to 0 does not guarantee determinism in code generation, although it indeed brings less non-determinism than the default configuration (temperature 1). In order to put LLM-based research on firmer scientific foundations, researchers need to take into account non-determinism in drawing their conclusions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ouyang, S., Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., & Wang, M. (2025). An Empirical Study of the Non-Determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.1145/3697010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free