mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code Change Related Tasks

arXiv 2407.02824 ↗First posted 3 Jul 2024cs.SEcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 textscLlama~2 and textscCode~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.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 9; 2026: 6.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHubcited by 53
  2. 2025Bridging the Editing Gap in LLMs: FineEdit for Precise and Targeted Text Modificationscited by 20
  3. 2024Top General Performance = Top Domain Performance? DomainCodeBench: A Multi-domain Code Generation Benchmarkcited by 13
  4. 2024CRScore: Grounding Automated Evaluation of Code Review Comments in Code Claims and Smellscited by 8
  5. 2025Augmenting Large Language Models with Static Code Analysis for Automated Code Quality Improvementscited by 2
  6. 2025LLM-Driven Collaborative Model for Untangling Commits via Explicit and Implicit Dependency Reasoningcited by 2
  7. 2025JSON Whisperer: Efficient JSON Editing with LLMscited by 2
  8. 2025HyperEdit: Unlocking Instruction-based Text Editing in LLMs via Hypernetworkscited by 2
  9. 2026To Diff or Not to Diff? Structure-Aware and Adaptive Output Formats for Efficient LLM-based Code Editingcited by 2
  10. 2026Repo0: Design-Driven Zero-to-All Code Generationcited by 2
  11. 2025CODE-DITING: A Reasoning-Based Metric for Functional Alignment in Code Evaluationcited by 1
  12. 2024Role-RL: Online Long-Context Processing with Role Reinforcement Learning for Distinct LLMs in Their Optimal Rolescited by 0
6 more
  1. 2025What a diff makes: automating code migration with large language modelscited by 0
  2. 2025A Dataset and Preliminary Study of Using GPT-5 for Code-change Impact Analysiscited by 0
  3. 2026MuMuTestUp: Mutation-based Multi-Agent Test Case Updatecited by 0
  4. 2026Diff-Based Code Corruption using LLMs for Large-Scale Bugfix Benchmarkingcited by 0
  5. 2026SynH-Rank: Quality-Aware Code Search via Diverse Data Synthesis and Hierarchical Ranking Trainingcited by 0
  6. 2026Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericssoncited by 0