Exploring the Potential of Llama Models in Automated Code Refinement: A Replication Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code reviews are an integral part of software development and have been recognized as a crucial practice for minimizing bugs and favouring higher code quality. They serve as an important checkpoint before committing code and play an essential role in knowledge transfer between developers. However, code reviews can be time-consuming and can stale the development of large software projects. In a recent study, Guo et al. assessed how ChatGPT3.5 can help the code review process. They evaluated the effectiveness of ChatGPT in automating the code refinement tasks, where developers recommend small changes in the submitted code. While Guo et al.'s study showed promising results, proprietary models like ChatGPT pose risks to data privacy and incur extra costs for software projects. In this study, we explore alternatives to ChatGPT in code refinement tasks by including two open-source, smaller-scale large language models: CodeLlama and Llama 2 (7B parameters). Our results show that, if properly tuned, the Llama models, particularly CodeLlama, can achieve reasonable performance, often comparable to ChatGPT in auto-mated code refinement. However, not all code refinement tasks are equally successful: tasks that require changing existing code (e.g., refactoring) are more manageable for models to automate than tasks that demand new code. Our study highlights the potential of open-source models for code refinement, offering cost-effective, privacy-conscious solutions for real-world software development.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.023 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".