GPIoT: Tailoring Small Language Models for IoT Program Synthesis and Development

March 02, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Leming Shen, Qiang Yang, Xinyu Huang, Zijing Ma, Yuanqing Zheng arXiv ID 2503.00686 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 15 Venue ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Code Large Language Models (LLMs) enhance software development efficiency by automatically generating code and documentation in response to user requirements. However, code LLMs cannot synthesize specialized programs when tasked with IoT applications that require domain knowledge. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers a promising solution by fetching relevant domain knowledge, it necessitates powerful cloud LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) to process user requirements and retrieved contents, which raises significant privacy concerns. This approach also suffers from unstable networks and prohibitive LLM query costs. Moreover, it is challenging to ensure the correctness and relevance of the fetched contents. To address these issues, we propose GPIoT, a code generation system for IoT applications by fine-tuning locally deployable Small Language Models (SLMs) on IoT-specialized datasets. SLMs have smaller model sizes, allowing efficient local deployment and execution to mitigate privacy concerns and network uncertainty. Furthermore, by fine-tuning the SLMs with our IoT-specialized datasets, the SLMs' ability to synthesize IoT-related programs can be substantially improved. To evaluate GPIoT's capability in synthesizing programs for IoT applications, we develop a benchmark, IoTBench. Extensive experiments and user trials demonstrate the effectiveness of GPIoT in generating IoT-specialized code, outperforming state-of-the-art code LLMs with an average task accuracy increment of 64.7% and significant improvements in user satisfaction.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted