Normalizing source code vocabulary to support program comprehension and software quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature reports that source code lexicon plays a paramount role in program comprehension, especially when software documentation is scarce, outdated or simply not available. In source code, a significant proportion of vocabulary can be either acronyms and-or abbreviations or concatenation of terms that can not be identified using consistent mechanisms such as naming conventions. It is, therefore, essential to disambiguate concepts conveyed by identifiers to support program comprehension and reap the full benefit of Information Retrieval-based techniques (e.g., feature location and traceability) whose linguistic information (i.e., source code identifiers and comments) used across all software artifacts (e.g., requirements, design, change requests, tests, and source code) must be consistent. To this aim, we propose source code vocabulary normalization approaches that exploit contextual information to align the vocabulary found in the source code with that found in other software artifacts. We were inspired in the choice of context levels by prior works and by our findings. Normalization consists of two tasks: splitting and expansion of source code identifiers. We also investigate the effect of source code vocabulary normalization approaches on software maintenance tasks. Results of our evaluation show that our contextual-aware techniques are accurate and efficient in terms of computation time than state of the art alternatives. In addition, our findings reveal that feature location techniques can benefit from vocabulary normalization approaches when no dynamic information is available.
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
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 | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".