Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Rectifier: Code Translation with Corrector via LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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 2407.07472 v1 pith:Z5VNPF6X submitted 2024-07-10 cs.SE cs.AI

Xin Yin , Chao Ni , Tien N. Nguyen , Shaohua Wang , Xiaohu Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords translationerrorscodellmserrorcorrectorgeneratedmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Software migration is garnering increasing attention with the evolution of software and society. Early studies mainly relied on handcrafted translation rules to translate between two languages, the translation process is error-prone and time-consuming. In recent years, researchers have begun to explore the use of pre-trained large language models (LLMs) in code translation. However, code translation is a complex task that LLMs would generate mistakes during code translation, they all produce certain types of errors when performing code translation tasks, which include (1) compilation error, (2) runtime error, (3) functional error, and (4) non-terminating execution. We found that the root causes of these errors are very similar (e.g. failure to import packages, errors in loop boundaries, operator errors, and more). In this paper, we propose a general corrector, namely Rectifier, which is a micro and universal model for repairing translation errors. It learns from errors generated by existing LLMs and can be widely applied to correct errors generated by any LLM. The experimental results on translation tasks between C++, Java, and Python show that our model has effective repair ability, and cross experiments also demonstrate the robustness of our method.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Syzygy: Dual Code-Test C to (safe) Rust Translation using LLMs and Dynamic Analysis

    cs.SE 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A dual code-and-test generation pipeline with dynamic-analysis specifications translates the 3,000-line Zopfli C library into safe Rust, though the top-level validation compares compression ratios rather than exact outputs.

  2. SimStep: Chain-of-Abstractions for Incremental Specification and Debugging of AI-Generated Interactive Simulations

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SimStep guides teachers through four editable graph abstractions (concepts, scenario, learning goals, UI interactions) to generate and debug AI-built simulations without writing code.

  3. Enhancing LLM's Ability to Generate More Repository-Aware Unit Tests Through Precise Contextual Information Injection

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RATester injects gopls-fetched definitions into LLM prompts during unit test generation, achieving 26.25% average line coverage and more killed mutants than baselines.

  4. Scalable, Validated Code Translation of Entire Projects using Large Language Models

    cs.PL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modular LLM pipeline with feature-mapping rules and type-compatibility checks reports 73% of functions from seven Go projects validated I/O equivalent in Rust, on projects up to 6,600 lines of code.

  5. What You See Is What You Get: Attention-based Self-guided Automatic Unit Test Generation

    cs.SE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AUGER steers an LLM's attention toward predicted defective lines and thereby triggers 84 of 723 Defects4J bugs, outperforming five test-generation baselines.

Pith tools