Retrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models trained on massive code corpora can generalize to new tasks without the need for task-specific fine-tuning. In few-shot learning, these models take as input a prompt, composed of natural language instructions, a few instances of task demonstration, and a query and generate an output. However, the creation of an effective prompt for code-related tasks in few-shot learning has received little attention. We present a technique for prompt creation that automatically retrieves code demonstrations similar to the developer task, based on embedding or frequency analysis. We apply our approach, Cedar, to two different programming languages, statically and dynamically typed, and two different tasks, namely, test assertion generation and program repair. For each task, we compare Cedar with state-of-the-art task-specific and fine-tuned models. The empirical results show that, with only a few relevant code demonstrations, our prompt creation technique is effective in both tasks with an accuracy of 76% and 52% for exact matches in test assertion generation and program repair tasks, respectively. For assertion generation, Cedar outperforms existing task-specific and fine-tuned models by 333% and 11%, respectively. For program repair, Cedar yields 189% better accuracy than task-specific models and is competitive with recent fine-tuned models. These findings have practical implications for practitioners, as Cedar could potentially be applied to multilingual and multitask settings without task or language-specific training with minimal examples and effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".