CodeFlowLM: Incremental Just-In-Time Defect Prediction with Pretrained Language Models and Exploratory Insights into Defect Localization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00231v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 22:18:46 GMT
• Title: CodeFlowLM: Incremental Just-In-Time Defect Prediction with Pretrained Language Models and Exploratory Insights into Defect Localization
• Abstract summary: This work introduces CodeFlowLM, an incremental learning framework for Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction (JIT-SDP)<n>Unlike traditional online learners, CodeFlowLM employs continual fine-tuning to address concept drift, class imbalance, and verification latency without retraining from scratch.<n>We extend the analysis to benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro against attention-based models.
• Score: 1.3878785822379076
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This work introduces CodeFlowLM, an incremental learning framework for Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction (JIT-SDP) that leverages pre-trained language models (PLMs). Unlike traditional online learners, CodeFlowLM employs continual fine-tuning to address concept drift, class imbalance, and verification latency without retraining from scratch. We evaluated encoder-only and encoder-decoder PLMs (notably CodeT5+ and UniXCoder) in JIT-SDP scenarios within and between projects, comparing them with the incremental baseline BORB. The results show that CodeFlowLM achieves up to 68% G-Mean gains, confirming its superior adaptability and robustness in evolving software environments. We further extend the analysis to Just-in-Time Defect Localization (JIT-DL), benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro against attention-based models. GPT-5 delivers comparable performance for Recall@20% and Effort@20% with higher stability, although attention-based methods retain an advantage in fine-grained ranking metrics (Top-k, IFA). A qualitative error analysis reveals that most false positives arise from (1) human-like conservative bias, (2) insufficient contextual information in diff-based prompts, and (3) potential dataset mislabeling in JIT-Defects4J. These findings highlight both the promise and the current limitations of LLM reasoning in defect localization. False negatives occur in smaller proportions. Overall, CodeFlowLM significantly advances the state of the art in incremental JIT-SDP, demonstrating superior adaptability and robustness in evolving software environments. Furthermore, our exploratory analysis of LLMs in JIT-DL not only benchmarks their performance against established attention-based models but also provides critical insights into the current limitations of prompt-based defect reasoning.

Related papers

• Beyond Translation Accuracy: Addressing False Failures in LLM-Based Code Translation [2.3411689215528346]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in automated code translation.<n>In this paper, we demonstrate that a significant number of reported failures in code translation are not due to incorrect logic, but rather evaluation-induced errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T03:49:58Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• CVeDRL: An Efficient Code Verifier via Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning [57.24524263804788]
  Code verifiers play a critical role in post-verification for LLM-based code generation.<n>Existing supervised fine-tuning methods suffer from data scarcity, high failure rates, and poor inference efficiency.<n>We show that naive RL with only functionality rewards fails to generate effective unit tests for difficult branches and samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T10:33:29Z)
• Enhancing LLM-based Fault Localization with a Functionality-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework [14.287359838639608]
  FaR-Loc is a framework that enhances method-level fault localization.<n> FaR-Loc consists of three key components: LLM Functionality Extraction, Semantic Retrieval, and LLM Re-ranking.<n>Our experiments on the widely used Defects4J benchmark show that FaR-Loc outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T20:37:11Z)
• Large Language Model Unlearning for Source Code [65.42425213605114]
  PROD is a novel unlearning approach that enables LLMs to forget undesired code content while preserving their code generation capabilities.<n>Our evaluation demonstrates that PROD achieves superior balance between forget quality and model utility compared to existing unlearning approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T16:27:59Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• LLM-Based Detection of Tangled Code Changes for Higher-Quality Method-Level Bug Datasets [8.166584296080805]
  We investigate the utility of Large Language Models for detecting tangled code changes by leveraging both commit messages and method-level code diffs.<n>Our results demonstrate that combining commit messages with code diffs significantly enhances model performance.<n>Applying our approach to 49 open-source projects improves the distributional separability of code metrics between buggy and non-buggy methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T06:26:13Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs [17.497629884237647]
  BugLens is a post-refinement framework that significantly enhances static analysis precision for bug detection.<n>LLMs demonstrate promising code understanding capabilities, but their direct application to program analysis remains unreliable.<n>LLMs guide LLMs through structured reasoning steps to assess security impact and validate constraints from the source code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T02:17:06Z)
• MCTS-Judge: Test-Time Scaling in LLM-as-a-Judge for Code Correctness Evaluation [17.432401371613903]
  We propose a resource-efficient, System-2 thinking framework for code correctness evaluation.<n>MCTS-Judge uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to decompose problems into simpler, multi-perspective evaluations.<n>High-precision, unit-test-level reward mechanism encourages the Large Language Model to perform line-by-line analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:55:48Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs.<n>We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier.<n>LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• A Multi-Agent Approach to Fault Localization via Graph-Based Retrieval and Reflexion [8.22737389683156]
  Traditional fault localization techniques require extensive training datasets and high computational resources.<n>Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities by enhancing code understanding and reasoning.<n>We propose LLM4FL, a multi-agent fault localization framework that utilizes three specialized LLM agents.<n> evaluated on the Defects4J benchmark, which includes 675 faults from 14 Java projects, LLM4FL achieves an 18.55% improvement in Top-1 accuracy over AutoFL and 4.82% over SoapFL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T16:47:34Z)
• Large Language Models for Test-Free Fault Localization [11.080712737595174]
  We propose a language model based fault localization approach that locates buggy lines of code without any test coverage information. We fine-tune language models with 350 million, 6 billion, and 16 billion parameters on small, manually curated corpora of buggy programs. Our empirical evaluation shows that LLMAO improves the Top-1 results over the state-of-the-art machine learning fault localization (MLFL) baselines by 2.3%-54.4%, and Top-5 results by 14.4%-35.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T01:26:39Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.