Exploring Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Techniques for Code Generation with Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities to generate accurate code snippets given natural language intents in a zero-shot manner, i.e., without the need for specific fine-tuning. While prior studies have highlighted the advantages of fine-tuning LLMs, this process incurs high computational costs, making it impractical in resource-scarce environments, particularly for models with billions of parameters. To address these challenges, previous research explored in-context learning (ICL) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as strategies to guide the LLM generative process with task-specific prompt examples. However, ICL and RAG introduce inconveniences, such as the need for designing contextually relevant prompts and the absence of learning task-specific parameters, thereby limiting downstream task performance. In this context, we foresee parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) as a promising approach to efficiently specialize LLMs to task-specific data while maintaining reasonable resource consumption. In this article, we deliver a comprehensive study of PEFT techniques for LLMs in the context of automated code generation. Our comprehensive investigation of PEFT techniques for LLMs reveals their superiority and potential over ICL and RAG across a diverse set of LLMs and three representative Python code generation datasets: Conala, CodeAlpacaPy, and APPS. Furthermore, our study highlights the potential for tuning larger LLMs and significant reductions in memory usage by combining PEFT with quantization. Therefore, this study opens opportunities for broader applications of PEFT in software engineering scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".