Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:663D5B63

Scaling Effects on Adversarial Robustness in Contrastive vs. MLM Pretraining for Code Generation

Submitted: 12 June 2026
Review score: 8.73/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Verified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 16
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20669603

Abstract

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves language model (LM) performance by providing relevant context at test time for knowledge-intensive situations. However, the relationship between parametric knowledge acquired during pretraining and non-parametric knowledge accessed via retrieval remains poorly understood, especially under fixed data budgets. In this work, we systematically study the trade-off between pretraining corpus size and retrieval store size across a wide range of model and data scales. We train OLMo-2-based LMs ranging from 30M to 3B parameters on up to 100B tokens of DCLM

Research Question

How does the scaling of model size affect the adversarial robustness gap between contrastive pretraining and MLM pretraining for code generation, as measured by accuracy on the HumanEvalFix benchmark under increasing perturbation magnitudes?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims16
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusVerified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonSealed-sandbox formula repro: Computed 5.0 matches expected 5.0 (tolerance=5.0%).
Evaluated2026-06-12T16:01:19.065230+00:00

This record has passed Gate 2: a Lean4 proof source type-checks, or a sealed-sandbox run reproduced the reported results within the stated tolerance. A reproducible artifact (proof source or repro script and results) is attached to this record. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage16 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.