Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CodeUpdateArena: Benchmarking Knowledge Editing on API Updates

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 2407.06249 v3 pith:SCX6FV4E submitted 2024-07-08 cs.CL cs.SE

classification cs.CLcs.SE
keywords codeknowledgeupdatellmsbenchmarkeditingprogramsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to synthesize and reason about source code. However, the static nature of these models' knowledge does not reflect the fact that libraries and API functions they invoke are continuously evolving, with functionality being added or changing. While numerous benchmarks evaluate how LLMs can generate code, no prior work has studied how an LLMs' knowledge about code API functions can be updated. To fill this gap, we present CodeUpdateArena, a benchmark for knowledge editing in the code domain. An instance in our benchmark consists of a synthetic API function update paired with a program synthesis example that uses the updated functionality; our goal is to update an LLM to be able to solve this program synthesis example without providing documentation of the update at inference time. Compared to knowledge editing for facts encoded in text, success here is more challenging: a code LLM must correctly reason about the semantics of the modified function rather than just reproduce its syntax. Our dataset is constructed by first prompting GPT-4 to generate atomic and executable function updates. Then, for each update, we generate program synthesis examples whose code solutions are prone to use the update. Our benchmark covers updates of various types to 54 functions from seven diverse Python packages, with a total of 670 program synthesis examples. Our experiments show that prepending documentation of the update to open-source code LLMs (i.e., DeepSeek, CodeLlama) does not allow them to incorporate changes for problem solving, and existing knowledge editing techniques also have substantial room for improvement. We hope our benchmark will inspire new methods for knowledge updating in code LLMs.

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. Don't Use a Cannon to Kill a Fly: Lightweight Model Editing for LLMs to Correct Deprecated API Recommendations

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AdaLoRA-L restricts edits to API-specific layers and raises specificity by 33–836% (relative) on a new 3,000+ instance benchmark while staying close to AdaLoRA's effectiveness.

  2. PropMEND: Hypernetworks for Knowledge Propagation in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PropMEND meta-trains a gradient-editing hypernetwork with propagation questions as the outer-loop objective, improving multi-hop knowledge propagation in LLMs in-domain but generalizing poorly to unseen relations.

  3. 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.

  4. ScienceMeter: Tracking Scientific Knowledge Updates in Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    ScienceMeter evaluates language model knowledge updates across three axes, preservation of old scientific claims, acquisition of new claims, and projection to future findings, and finds all current methods fall short.

Pith tools