Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Model Editing for LLMs4Code: How Far are We?

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 2411.06638 v2 pith:TKVES32C submitted 2024-11-11 cs.SE cs.CL

classification cs.SEcs.CL
keywords editingllms4codeknowledgemodelcodetechniquesperformanceadvanced
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models for Code (LLMs4Code) have been found to exhibit outstanding performance in the software engineering domain, especially the remarkable performance in coding tasks. However, even the most advanced LLMs4Code can inevitably contain incorrect or outdated code knowledge. Due to the high cost of training LLMs4Code, it is impractical to re-train the models for fixing these problematic code knowledge. Model editing is a new technical field for effectively and efficiently correcting erroneous knowledge in LLMs, where various model editing techniques and benchmarks have been proposed recently. Despite that, a comprehensive study that thoroughly compares and analyzes the performance of the state-of-the-art model editing techniques for adapting the knowledge within LLMs4Code across various code-related tasks is notably absent. To bridge this gap, we perform the first systematic study on applying state-of-the-art model editing approaches to repair the inaccuracy of LLMs4Code. To that end, we introduce a benchmark named CLMEEval, which consists of two datasets, i.e., CoNaLa-Edit (CNLE) with 21K+ code generation samples and CodeSearchNet-Edit (CSNE) with 16K+ code summarization samples. With the help of CLMEEval, we evaluate six advanced model editing techniques on three LLMs4Code: CodeLlama (7B), CodeQwen1.5 (7B), and Stable-Code (3B). Our findings include that the external memorization-based GRACE approach achieves the best knowledge editing effectiveness and specificity (the editing does not influence untargeted knowledge), while generalization (whether the editing can generalize to other semantically-identical inputs) is a universal challenge for existing techniques. Furthermore, building on in-depth case analysis, we introduce an enhanced version of GRACE called A-GRACE, which incorporates contrastive learning to better capture the semantics of the inputs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CODEMENV: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Code Migration

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CODEMENV provides 922 examples and three tasks for evaluating LLMs on cross-version code migration, finding models are much better at migrating old code to new versions (up to 43.84% pass@1) than the reverse.

  2. Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey-plus-benchmark argues that current code LLMs fail safety thresholds and need stronger governance, but the supporting experiment is incomplete.

Pith tools