Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code Change Related Tasks

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 2407.02824 v1 pith:NSPPHUHQ submitted 2024-07-03 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords codellmstasksmodelscode-change-relatedalwayschangesexamples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Developers deal with code-change-related tasks daily, e.g., reviewing code. Pre-trained code and code-change-oriented models have been adapted to help developers with such tasks. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown their effectiveness in code-related tasks. However, existing LLMs for code focus on general code syntax and semantics rather than the differences between two code versions. Thus, it is an open question how LLMs perform on code-change-related tasks. To answer this question, we conduct an empirical study using \textgreater 1B parameters LLMs on three code-change-related tasks, i.e., code review generation, commit message generation, and just-in-time comment update, with in-context learning (ICL) and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT, including LoRA and prefix-tuning). We observe that the performance of LLMs is poor without examples and generally improves with examples, but more examples do not always lead to better performance. LLMs tuned with LoRA have comparable performance to the state-of-the-art small pre-trained models. Larger models are not always better, but \textsc{Llama~2} and \textsc{Code~Llama} families are always the best. The best LLMs outperform small pre-trained models on the code changes that only modify comments and perform comparably on other code changes. We suggest future work should focus more on guiding LLMs to learn the knowledge specific to the changes related to code rather than comments for code-change-related tasks.

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. Augmenting Large Language Models with Static Code Analysis for Automated Code Quality Improvements

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Generating fixes with GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4o, prompted with SonarQube findings and web-retrieved examples, removed most flagged bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells from one codebase, with success judged solely by...

Pith tools