REVIEW 5 cited by
CodeUpdateArena: Benchmarking Knowledge Editing on API Updates
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
CodeUpdateArena: Benchmarking Knowledge Editing on API Updates
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to synthesize and reason about source code. However, the static nature of these models' knowledge does not reflect the fact that libraries and API functions they invoke are continuously evolving, with functionality being added or changing. While numerous benchmarks evaluate how LLMs can generate code, no prior work has studied how an LLMs' knowledge about code API functions can be updated. To fill this gap, we present CodeUpdateArena, a benchmark for knowledge editing in the code domain. An instance in our benchmark consists of a synthetic API function update paired with a program synthesis example that uses the updated functionality; our goal is to update an LLM to be able to solve this program synthesis example without providing documentation of the update at inference time. Compared to knowledge editing for facts encoded in text, success here is more challenging: a code LLM must correctly reason about the semantics of the modified function rather than just reproduce its syntax. Our dataset is constructed by first prompting GPT-4 to generate atomic and executable function updates. Then, for each update, we generate program synthesis examples whose code solutions are prone to use the update. Our benchmark covers updates of various types to 54 functions from seven diverse Python packages, with a total of 670 program synthesis examples. Our experiments show that prepending documentation of the update to open-source code LLMs (i.e., DeepSeek, CodeLlama) does not allow them to incorporate changes for problem solving, and existing knowledge editing techniques also have substantial room for improvement. We hope our benchmark will inspire new methods for knowledge updating in code LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Correct Code, Vulnerable Dependencies: A Large Scale Measurement Study of LLM-Specified Library Versions
LLMs frequently specify library versions with known CVEs in generated code (36-56% of tasks), show low compatibility (20-63%), and converge on the same risky versions across models.
-
DeployBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Research Artifact Deployment
DeployBench is a new benchmark of 51 research-artifact deployment tasks where four LLMs with OpenHands achieve 7.8-51% pass rates, with failures mostly from agents stopping after weaker self-checks than the paper requires.
-
Knowledge Boundary Probing and Demand-Guided Intervention for LLM-Based Power System Code Generation
PowerCodeBench and a boundary-aware intervention raise LLM accuracy on power-system code generation by 32-56 points across ten open-weight models and four commercial APIs on a 2,000-task benchmark.
-
Don't Use a Cannon to Kill a Fly: Lightweight Model Editing for LLMs to Correct Deprecated API Recommendations
AdaLoRA-L restricts edits to API-specific layers and raises specificity by 33–836% (relative) on a new 3,000+ instance benchmark while staying close to AdaLoRA's effectiveness.
-
Understanding Robustness of Model Editing in Code LLMs
A controlled benchmark on 2040 problems reveals poor generalization and high interference in model editing for API updates in code LLMs, with many successes being workarounds rather than true migrations.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.