Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.09978

One Model, Many Skills: Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Multitask Code Analysis

Abstract

Large language models have recently surpassed specialized systems on code generation, yet their effectiveness on other code-analysis tasks remains less clear. At the same time, multi-task learning offers a way to unify diverse objectives within a single model, but fully fine-tuning LLMs across tasks is computationally prohibitive. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning mitigates this cost by updating only a small fraction of weights. Although PEFT has proven effective in single-task settings, its potential for multi-task learning has not yet been systematically explored. We present the first comprehensive evaluation of multi-task PEFT for code analysis, comparing several methods across diverse tasks and model architectures. Our experiments show that a single PEFT module shared across tasks can match, and in some cases surpass, full multi-task fine-tuning, confirming that the benefits of PEFT extend beyond isolated tasks. When comparing single-task and multi-task setups, we find that multi-task PEFT achieves a favorable performance-efficiency trade-off: it delivers accuracy close to single-task fine-tuning while reducing storage requirements, cutting the number of trainable parameters by a factor of the task count, and lowering computation costs by as much as 85%. At the same time, multi-task gains remain sensitive to task grouping. Through task-pairing experiments, we identify key factors shaping outcomes: task stability, model architecture, task complementarity, asymmetry, and dataset quality determine the success of co-fine-tuning. Finally, we benchmark efficient multi-task PEFT against direct prompting of open-source general-purpose LLMs, including DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral, CodeLlama, and StarCoder. Despite their strong performance in code generation, these models underperform on analysis tasks, where even a 1B-parameter model with multi-task PEFT achieves significantly better results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Amal Akli, Maxime Cordy, Mike Papadakis, Yves Le Traon. 2026-02-03. One Model, Many Skills: Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Multitask Code Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09978

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