Explaining Transformer-based Code Models: What Do They Learn? When They Do Not Work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a wide interest in designing deep neural network-based models that automate downstream software engineering tasks on source code, such as code document generation, code search, and program repair. Although the main objective of these studies is to improve the effectiveness of the downstream task, many studies only attempt to employ the next best neural network model, without a proper in-depth analysis of why a particular solution works or does not, on particular tasks or scenarios. In this paper, using an example eXplainable AI (XAI) method (attention mechanism), we study two recent large language models (LLMs) for code (CodeBERT and GraphCodeBERT) on a set of software engineering downstream tasks: code document generation (CDG), code refinement (CR), and code translation (CT). Through quantitative and qualitative studies, we identify what CodeBERT and GraphCodeBERT learn (put the highest attention on, in terms of source code token types), on these tasks. We also show some of the common patterns when the model does not work as expected (performs poorly even on easy problems) and suggest recommendations that may alleviate the observed challenges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".