OpenAI o4-mini vs DeepSeek R1: Best Model for Bug Detection

Introduction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly advanced, showing significant promise in software tasks like code generation and bug detection. Despite these advancements, identifying subtle and intricate bugs remains challenging. In this article, I’ll explore the capabilities of two prominent AI models—OpenAI o4-mini and DeepSeek R1—in detecting difficult-to-identify bugs across multiple programming languages. The comparison highlights their strengths, differences, and underlying reasoning processes.

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

• DeepSeek R1: Identified 23 bugs out of 210, demonstrating superior performance.
• OpenAI o4-mini: Identified 15 bugs out of 210.

Results by Programming Language

Performance varied significantly across languages:

• Python: OpenAI o4-mini performed better, detecting 5 bugs compared to DeepSeek R1's 3. OpenAI's extensive pattern training likely contributed here.
• TypeScript: DeepSeek R1 significantly outperformed OpenAI, identifying 6 bugs versus 2, indicating stronger logical analysis capabilities.
• Go: DeepSeek R1 again demonstrated an advantage, detecting 3 bugs compared to OpenAI’s single detection. This emphasizes DeepSeek's superior handling of concurrency issues and logical complexities.
• Rust: DeepSeek R1 excelled, detecting 7 bugs—more than double OpenAI’s count of 3 bugs. Its success highlights the model’s strength in less mainstream, logic-intensive languages.
• Ruby: Both models were evenly matched, detecting 4 bugs each, indicating comparable capability in dynamically-typed environments.

Analysis and Insights

The differences observed between DeepSeek R1 and OpenAI o4-mini highlight critical distinctions in their architectures and training methods. DeepSeek R1's consistently stronger performance in languages like TypeScript and Rust reflects its effective integration of logical reasoning processes into bug detection. Its ability to explicitly plan and reason before response generation is particularly beneficial in complex environments, allowing it to identify subtle logic errors and concurrency issues that often elude simpler, pattern-based methods.

In contrast, OpenAI o4-mini's strengths lie in speed and effective pattern recognition, performing best in languages like Python, where extensive data training facilitates rapid identification of common bug patterns. However, this reliance on pattern recognition alone limits its effectiveness in languages with less available training data or more complex logical structures.

Highlighted Bug Example

An insightful example highlighting DeepSeek R1’s reasoning capability emerged in Test 7 from our Python dataset—a blockchain-based voting system:

Bug Description:
The bug involved a thread-safety issue within the ServiceRegistry.instances dictionary, accessed concurrently without synchronization. This concurrency issue posed risks of race conditions and potential data corruption.

• OpenAI o4-mini Output:
  "The cast_vote method hard‑codes private_key = "" before calling add_transaction, causing votes to be signed incorrectly and failing signature verification." (This was a valid bug, but not the most critical.)

• DeepSeek R1 Output:
  "The most critical bug is the thread-safety issue in the ServiceRegistry.instances dictionary, accessed concurrently by multiple threads (Flask request handlers and async health checks) without proper synchronization. This leads to race conditions and potential data corruption."

This comparison clearly demonstrates DeepSeek R1’s superior depth of reasoning. Unlike OpenAI o4-mini, DeepSeek R1 identified the deeper, critical concurrency issue, underscoring its capability to reason through complex interactions and identify bugs beyond surface-level syntactical patterns.

Conclusion

The comparative study underscores DeepSeek R1’s advantage in logical reasoning and depth of analysis, essential for detecting subtle and complex software bugs, particularly in less mainstream or concurrency-intensive languages. While OpenAI o4-mini performs effectively within certain well-established contexts, DeepSeek R1 provides broader applicability, reinforcing the importance of integrating sophisticated reasoning into AI-powered bug detection.

As AI models continue to evolve, blending the rapid pattern-recognition capabilities of models like OpenAI o4-mini with the logical rigor of DeepSeek R1 may yield even more powerful and effective software verification tools.

Interested in using advanced AI to detect subtle bugs in your codebase? Try Greptile today.