Understanding Robustness of Model Editing in Code LLMs: An Empirical Study

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software development. However, while LLMs remain static after pretraining, programming languages and APIs continue to evolve, leading to the generation of deprecated or incompatible code that undermines reliability. Retraining LLMs from scratch to reflect such changes is computationally expensive, making model editing a promising lightweight alternative that updates only a small subset of parameters. Despite its potential, it remains unclear whether model editing yields genuine syntactic and semantic adaptations or merely superficial fixes. In this work, we present a systematic study of five state-of-the-art model editing methods: Constrained Fine-Tuning (FT), GRACE, MEMIT, PMET, and ROME. We apply these methods to three leading open-source code LLMs, CodeLlama, CodeQwen1.5, and DeepSeek-Coder, under controlled API deprecation scenarios. Our evaluation covers both instant and sequential editing settings, using three disjoint evaluation sets designed to assess reliability, generalization, and specificity. We measure model correctness at three levels: successful compilation, partial test case pass, and full test pass. Our findings show that instant edits consistently degrade model performance, with syntactic validity dropping by up to 86 percentage points and functional correctness declining by 45 points even in the best-performing setting. Sequential edits further amplify this degradation, and in some cases, model performance collapses entirely. Across all models, most passing generations relied on workarounds rather than correctly adopting the intended changes, while faulty adoptions that result in test failures or compilation errors were significantly more frequent. Correct adoptions, where the model correctly integrates the intended change, occurred in only about 6% of cases.