OpenAI 4o-mini vs DeepSeek R1: Best for Hard Bug Detection?

Introduction

As software development grows increasingly complex, ensuring reliable bug detection becomes crucial. AI-driven tools promise to automate and enhance this process, offering significant potential improvements over traditional debugging methods. This post compares two advanced language models—OpenAI 4o-mini and DeepSeek R1—to assess their effectiveness at identifying hard-to-spot bugs across several programming languages. By running tests on Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust, and Ruby, we aim to better understand the strengths and limitations of each model.

The Evaluation Dataset

I wanted to have the dataset of bugs to cover multiple domains and languages. I picked sixteen domains, picked 2-3 self-contained programs for each domain, and used Cursor to generate each program in TypeScript, Ruby, Python, Go, and Rust.

Next I cycled through and introduced a tiny bug in each one. The type of bug I chose to introduce had to be:

1. A bug that a professional developer could reasonably introduce
2. A bug that could easily slip through linters, tests, and manual code review

Some examples of bugs I introduced:

1. Undefined `response` variable in the ensure block
2. Not accounting for amplitude normalization when computing wave stretching on a sound sample
3. Hard coded date which would be accurate in most, but not all situations

At the end of this, I had 210 programs, each with a small, difficult-to-catch, and realistic bug.

A disclaimer: these bugs are the hardest-to-catch bugs I could think of, and are not representative of the median bugs usually found in everyday software.

Results

Overall Performance

• DeepSeek R1 identified 23 bugs out of 210.
• OpenAI 4o-mini identified 19 bugs out of 210.

The results demonstrate comparable effectiveness overall, with slight variations depending on the programming language involved.

Results by Programming Language

Here’s a detailed breakdown of their performance per language:

• Python

  • OpenAI 4o-mini: 4 bugs detected (out of 42).
  • DeepSeek R1: 3 bugs detected.
  • Insight: OpenAI showed a slight advantage, likely benefiting from Python’s prevalence in training datasets.

• TypeScript

  • DeepSeek R1: 6 bugs detected (out of 42).
  • OpenAI 4o-mini: 2 bugs detected.
  • Insight: DeepSeek R1 clearly outperformed OpenAI, suggesting stronger logical reasoning capabilities in complex syntactical scenarios.

• Go

  • DeepSeek R1: 3 bugs detected (out of 42).
  • OpenAI 4o-mini: 3 bugs detected.
  • Insight: Both models demonstrated similar effectiveness in handling Go’s concurrency and logical structures.

• Rust

  • DeepSeek R1: 7 bugs detected (out of 41).
  • OpenAI 4o-mini: 4 bugs detected.
  • Insight: DeepSeek R1 exhibited superior performance, highlighting its strength in addressing Rust’s complex semantics.

• Ruby

  • OpenAI 4o-mini: 6 bugs detected (out of 42).
  • DeepSeek R1: 4 bugs detected.
  • Insight: OpenAI performed better here, suggesting a stronger familiarity with Ruby’s dynamic typing and logic patterns.

Analysis and Key Insights

The varied results across languages reveal distinct strengths in each AI model. OpenAI 4o-mini excels slightly in Python and Ruby—languages typically well-represented in training datasets—indicating an advantage in pattern recognition capabilities. DeepSeek R1, conversely, performed notably better in TypeScript and Rust, pointing to enhanced logical reasoning capabilities, particularly valuable in languages with more nuanced and less common syntax.

These differences may be attributed to training data exposure and underlying model architectures. OpenAI's success in popular languages suggests its strengths lie in rapid pattern detection, while DeepSeek’s better performance in complex languages like Rust implies a more deliberate approach, incorporating logical planning and reasoning steps.

Highlighted Bug Example

A particularly insightful bug involved a Rust-based program where DeepSeek R1 successfully identified a subtle concurrency issue, overlooked by OpenAI 4o-mini:

Test Number: Rust Bug #7 – Concurrency Flaw in Peer Management

• DeepSeek R1 Reasoning Output:

  "The code has a race condition in KBucket.add_peer. The delayed peer replacement check (threading.Timer) accesses a potentially modified bucket state, creating risks of incorrect peer eviction or bucket overfilling due to unsynchronized concurrent modifications."

This example underscores DeepSeek R1’s advanced reasoning ability, crucial for identifying complex multi-threaded bugs. OpenAI 4o-mini’s failure to detect this issue suggests limitations in handling nuanced concurrency contexts.

Conclusion

This comparative study highlights complementary strengths in OpenAI 4o-mini and DeepSeek R1, reinforcing the importance of integrating both rapid pattern recognition and sophisticated logical reasoning into AI-driven software verification tools. While OpenAI excels in pattern-rich contexts, DeepSeek’s stronger reasoning capabilities make it particularly effective in complex, concurrent, and less mainstream programming languages.

As AI continues to evolve, combining these capabilities can significantly improve the reliability and efficiency of software development.

Interested in leveraging advanced AI for detecting subtle bugs in your code? Try Greptile today.