Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Can It Edit? Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Follow Code Editing Instructions

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 2312.12450 v6 pith:C4RCJ3M6 submitted 2023-12-11 cs.SE cs.AIcs.LGcs.PL

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.LGcs.PL
keywords codeeditingmodelstaskslanguageopenllmssynthesizing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A significant amount of research is focused on developing and evaluating large language models for a variety of code synthesis tasks. These include synthesizing code from natural language, synthesizing tests from code, and synthesizing explanations of code. In contrast, the behavior of instructional code editing with LLMs is understudied. These are tasks in which the model is provided a block of code and an instruction to modify the code. The editing instruction may ask for a feature to be added or removed, describe a bug and ask for a fix, or ask for a different kind of solution. We introduce a carefully crafted benchmark of code editing tasks and use it to evaluate several cutting edge LLMs. Our evaluation exposes a significant gap between the capabilities of state-of-the-art open and closed models. For example, even GPT-3.5-Turbo is better than the best open model at code editing tasks. We also introduce a new, carefully curated, permissively licensed training dataset of code editing tasks coupled with natural language instructions. Using this training dataset, we show that we can fine-tune open Code LLMs to significantly improve their code editing capabilities, closing the gap between open and closed models. All code, data, and models are available at https://github.com/nuprl/CanItEdit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Obey, Diverge, Collapse: Blind Obedience to Incorrect Instructions Drives Code LLMs to Irrecoverable Code Semantic Collapse

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Code LLMs correctly label incorrect repair instructions as wrong, then follow them anyway, creating compounding Ghost Errors that self-guided iterative repair usually cannot reverse.

  2. RepoMaster: Autonomous Exploration and Understanding of GitHub Repositories for Complex Task Solving

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RepoMaster, a repository-aware code agent, lifts the task pass rate from 40.7% to 62.9% and cuts token use by about 95% versus OpenHands on the new GitTaskBench benchmark.

  3. LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 83 SE benchmarks, average leakage into StarCoder's pretraining data is 4.8% (Python), 2.8% (Java), and 0.7% (C/C++), but QuixBugs and BigCloneBench are 100% and 55.7% leaked.

  4. Applying the Chinese Wall Reverse Engineering Technique to Large Language Model Code Editing

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Using Gemini 2.5 Pro to annotate code with edit instructions improved Comma v0.1 1T's CanItEdit pass@20 from 20.00 to 33.33 and Starcoder2 Instruct's pass@1 from 35.10 to 42.05.

Pith tools