Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Structured Code Representations Enable Data-Efficient Adaptation of Code Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.10716 v1 pith:BJGRYWO4 submitted 2024-01-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords codemodelspre-trainedstructurescstslanguageadaptadaptation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Current language models tailored for code tasks often adopt the pre-training-then-fine-tuning paradigm from natural language processing, modeling source code as plain text. This approach, however, overlooks the unambiguous structures inherent in programming languages. In this work, we explore data-efficient adaptation of pre-trained code models by further pre-training and fine-tuning them with program structures. Specifically, we represent programs as parse trees -- also known as concrete syntax trees (CSTs) -- and adapt pre-trained models on serialized CSTs. Although the models that we adapt have been pre-trained only on the surface form of programs, we find that a small amount of continual pre-training and fine-tuning on CSTs without changing the model architecture yields improvements over the baseline approach across various code tasks. The improvements are found to be particularly significant when there are limited training examples, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating program structures with plain-text representation even when working with backbone models that have not been pre-trained with structures.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quality Assessment of Python Tests Generated by Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comparative study of Python test suites generated by GPT-4o, Amazon Q, and LLama 3.3 found 151 execution errors and 512 test smells, with assertion failures and low-cohesion tests most common.

Pith tools