Papers › No More Fine-Tuning? An Experimental Evaluation of Prompt Tuning in Code Intelligence

No More Fine-Tuning? An Experimental Evaluation of Prompt Tuning in Code Intelligence

24 Jul 2022arXiv:2207.11680archive 2025-07-28

Chaozheng Wang, Yuanhang Yang, Cuiyun Gao, Yun Peng, Hongyu Zhang, Michael R. Lyu

Pre-trained models have been shown effective in many code intelligence tasks. These models are pre-trained on large-scale unlabeled corpus and then fine-tuned in downstream tasks. However, as the inputs to pre-training and downstream tasks are in different forms, it is hard to fully explore the knowledge of pre-trained models. Besides, the performance of fine-tuning strongly relies on the amount of downstream data, while in practice, the scenarios with scarce data are common. Recent studies in the natural language processing (NLP) field show that prompt tuning, a new paradigm for tuning, alleviates the above issues and achieves promising results in various NLP tasks. In prompt tuning, the prompts inserted during tuning provide task-specific knowledge, which is especially beneficial for tasks with relatively scarce data. In this paper, we empirically evaluate the usage and effect of prompt tuning in code intelligence tasks. We conduct prompt tuning on popular pre-trained models CodeBERT and CodeT5 and experiment with three code intelligence tasks including defect prediction, code summarization, and code translation. Our experimental results show that prompt tuning consistently outperforms fine-tuning in all three tasks. In addition, prompt tuning shows great potential in low-resource scenarios, e.g., improving the BLEU scores of fine-tuning by more than 26\% on average for code summarization. Our results suggest that instead of fine-tuning, we could adapt prompt tuning for code intelligence tasks to achieve better performance, especially when lacking task-specific data.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

14 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from adf1178/pt4code. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections