analiza aiqbench
This study identifies a critical trade-off in CodeLLMs where instruction tuning enhances intent-following capabilities but simultaneously degrades code infilling performance, a phenomenon termed the "Instruction-Tuning Tax." For developers relying on AI assistants within Integrated Development Environments, this suggests that models optimized for command-mode interactions may underperform in flow-mode completion tasks. The findings underscore the necessity of balancing instruction tuning strategies to maintain high fidelity across the distinct cognitive modes required for effective coding assistance.
Lost in the Flow with Code Talkers: Unveiling the Instruction-Tuning Tax of Large Language Models in Code Tasks
arXiv:2606.08676v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding assistants have significantly improved developer productivity by automatically suggesting code that aligns with user intent, and many of these tools are now integrated directly into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). Developers interact with code in two distinct cognitive modes: Flow and Command. While developers require tools that directly complete or infill code in unfinished programs during Flow mode, they also need tools that can comprehend intentions expressed as natural-language instructions and convert them into executable code in Command mode. Although instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate many application scenarios due to their abilities to infer and fulfill developers' intents, it remains unclear whether the same paradigm is equally suitable for different code-related tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how instruction tuning affects the feasibility of CodeLLMs as coding assistants. To fill this gap, we conduct the first empirical study that uncovers a key trade-off caused by instruction tuning across programming modes, which we term the Instruction-Tuning Tax. Our results show that instruction tuning is not a free lunch: although instruction-tuned models are more capable of following instructions and leveraging structured guidance, these gains often come at the cost of weaker infilling performance. We further extend our study through both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including manual failure categorization, behavioral metrics that capture generation fidelity, and intermediate-checkpoint evaluation throughout the tuning process. Summarizing our results into seven findings and four implications, our study offers a new perspective on the development of AI-powered coding tools and highlights the need to carefully balance instruction-following ability with effective code generation assistance.
Abstract:AI coding assistants have significantly improved developer productivity by automatically suggesting code that aligns with user intent, and many of these tools are now integrated directly into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). Developers interact with code in two distinct cognitive modes: Flow and Command. While developers require tools that directly complete or infill code in unfinished programs during Flow mode, they also need tools that can comprehend intentions expressed as natural-language instructions and convert them into executable code in Command mode. Although instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate many application scenarios due to their abilities to infer and fulfill developers' intents, it remains unclear whether the same paradigm is equally suitable for different code-related tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how instruction tuning affects the feasibility of CodeLLMs as coding assistants. To fill this gap, we conduct the first empirical study that uncovers a key trade-off caused by instruction tuning across programming modes, which we term the Instruction-Tuning Tax. Our results show that instruction tuning is not a free lunch: although instruction-tuned models are more capable of following instructions and leveraging structured guidance, these gains often come at the cost of weaker infilling performance. We further extend our study through both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including manual failure categorization, behavioral metrics that capture generation fidelity, and intermediate-checkpoint evaluation throughout the tuning process. Summarizing our results into seven findings and four implications, our study offers a new perspective on the development of AI-powered coding tools and highlights the need to carefully balance instruction-following ability with effective code generation assistance.
25 pages, 6 figures. Evaluation toolkit and dataset: this https URL
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.08676 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2606.08676v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.08676 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 370 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Six Principles of Voice Design: Designing for the Ear and Encoding It into Agent Script
Salesforce Blog · 8 oct. 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026

Exploring self-distilled reasoning for supervised fine-tuning with Amazon Nova
AWS · 21 iul. 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026