A Semantic-based Optimization Approach for Repairing LLMs: Case Study on Code Generation
March 17, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Jian Gu, Aldeida Aleti, Chunyang Chen, Hongyu Zhang
arXiv ID
2503.12899
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.CL,
cs.LG
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Language Models (LMs) are widely used in software engineering for code generation, but they may produce erroneous code. Rather than repairing outputs, a more thorough remedy is to address underlying model failures. LM repair offers a lightweight solution: it requires minimal data, lowers computational cost, and limits side effects. Unlike full retraining, LM repair focuses on applying tailored updates to targeted neurons, making it suitable for limited resources, high-performance demands, or strict safety requirements. In this paper, we propose Semantic Targeting for Analytical Repair (STAR), a novel semantic-based optimization method for repairing LLMs. STAR realizes the main operations of repairing LMs in an optimization process, including locating ``buggy neurons'', solving ``neuron patches'', and patching ``buggy neurons''. The neuron patches are computed with a solid semantic-based analytical formula, which directly bridges the changes to logits with the deltas of neurons, by steering latent representations. Compared to the prior work of LM repair (MINT) and standard optimization methods (SGD), STAR integrates their strengths while mitigating their limitations. By reformulating LM repair as an optimization process, STAR may solve multiple failures together, significantly improving the usefulness. Evaluated on coding tasks using popular code LMs, STAR demonstrates superior effectiveness compared with the state-of-the-art. Besides, STAR exhibits better efficiency. In terms of side effects, namely the balance between generalization and specificity, STAR outperforms prior work by a significant margin. Additionally, we conducted assessments on the overfitting risk of LM repair as well as the cumulative impact. Further, we analyzed the differences with pipeline-based methods and explained the reason why STAR is better and how it mitigated the common limitations of LM repair.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted