Chatgpt Inaccuracy Mitigation During Technical Report Understanding: Are we There Yet?
Salma Begum Tamanna, Gias Uddin, Song Wang, Lan Xia, Longyu Zhang
Abstract
Hallucinations, the tendency to produce irrelevant/incorrect responses, are prevalent concerns in generative AIbased tools like ChatGPT. Although hallucinations in ChatGPT are studied for textual responses, it is unknown how ChatGPT hallucinates for technical texts that contain both textual and technical terms. We surveyed 47 software engineers and produced a benchmark of 412 Q&A pairs from the bug reports of two OSS projects. We find that a RAG-based ChatGPT (i.e., ChatGPT tuned with the benchmark issue reports) is 36.4 % correct when producing answers to the questions, due to two reasons 1) limitations to understand complex technical contents in code snippets like stack traces, and 2) limitations to integrate contexts denoted in the technical terms and texts. We present CHIME (ChatGPT Inaccuracy Mitigation Engine) whose underlying principle is that if we can preprocess the technical reports better and guide the query validation process in ChatGPT, we can address the observed limitations. CHIME uses context-free grammar (CFG) to parse stack traces in technical reports. CHIME then verifies and fixes ChatGPT responses by applying metamorphic testing and query transformation. In our benchmark, CHIME shows 30.3% more correction over ChatGPT responses. In a user study, we find that the improved responses with CHIME are considered more useful than those generated from ChatGPT without CHIME.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on19
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksPatrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 19,162 citations
- Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-FeedbackAman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 4,972 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- Extracting Training Data from Large Language ModelsNicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 2,866 citations
- GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data FlowDaya Guo, Shuo Ren, Shuai Lu, Zhangyin Feng et al.ICLR 2021 · 1,644 citations
Related papers
- Chatgpt-Based Test Generation for Refactoring Engines Enhanced by Feature Analysis on ExamplesChunhao Dong, Yanjie Jiang, Yuxia Zhang, Yang Zhang et al.ICSE 2025 · 4 citations
- The Dawn After the Dark: An Empirical Study on Factuality Hallucination in Large Language ModelsJunyi Li, Jie Chen, Ruiyang Ren, Xiaoxue Cheng et al.ACL 2024 · 49 citations
- Self-contradictory Hallucinations of Large Language Models: Evaluation, Detection and MitigationNiels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, Martin T. VechevICLR 2024 · 172 citations
- ChatGPT Incorrectness Detection in Software ReviewsMinaoar Hossain Tanzil, Junaed Younus Khan, Gias UddinICSE 2024 · 10 citations
- Evaluating and Improving ChatGPT for Unit Test GenerationZhiqiang Yuan, Mingwei Liu, Shiji Ding, Kaixin Wang et al.FSE 2024 · 89 citations
