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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Obey, Diverge, Collapse: Blind Obedience to Incorrect Instructions Drives Code LLMs to Irrecoverable Code Semantic Collapse
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.
-
RepoMaster: Autonomous Exploration and Understanding of GitHub Repositories for Complex Task Solving
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.
-
LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks
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.
-
Applying the Chinese Wall Reverse Engineering Technique to Large Language Model Code Editing
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.