Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2305.10785

CCT5: A Code-Change-Oriented Pre-Trained Model

Abstract

Software is constantly changing, requiring developers to perform several derived tasks in a timely manner, such as writing a description for the intention of the code change, or identifying the defect-prone code changes. Considering that the cost of dealing with these tasks can account for a large proportion (typically around 70 percent) of the total development expenditure, automating such processes will significantly lighten the burdens of developers. To achieve such a target, existing approaches mainly rely on training deep learning models from scratch or fine-tuning existing pretrained models on such tasks, both of which have weaknesses. Specifically, the former uses comparatively small-scale labelled data for training, making it difficult to learn and exploit the domain knowledge of programming language hidden in the large-amount unlabelled code in the wild; the latter is hard to fully leverage the learned knowledge of the pre-trained model, as existing pre-trained models are designed to encode a single code snippet rather than a code change (i.e., the difference between two code snippets). We propose to pre-train a model specially designed for code changes to better support developers in software maintenance. To this end, we first collect a large-scale dataset containing 1.5M+ pairwise data of code changes and commit messages. Based on these data, we curate five different tasks for pre-training, which equip the model with diverse domain knowledge about code changes. We fine-tune the pre-trained model, CCT5, on three widely-studied tasks incurred by code changes and two tasks specific to the code review process. Results show that CCT5 outperforms both conventional deep learning approaches and existing pre-trained models on these tasks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bo Lin, Shangwen Wang, Zhongxin Liu, Yepang Liu, Xin Xia, Xiaoguang Mao. 2023-05-18. CCT5: A Code-Change-Oriented Pre-Trained Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10785

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE