CloCom: Mining existing source code for automatic comment generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code comments are an integral part of software development. They improve program comprehension and software maintainability. The lack of code comments is a common problem in the software industry. Therefore, it is beneficial to generate code comments automatically. In this paper, we propose a general approach to generate code comments automatically by analyzing existing software repositories. We apply code clone detection techniques to discover similar code segments and use the comments from some code segments to describe the other similar code segments. We leverage natural language processing techniques to select relevant comment sentences. In our evaluation, we analyze 42 million lines of code from 1,005 open source projects from GitHub, and use them to generate 359 code comments for 21 Java projects. We manually evaluate the generated code comments and find that only 23.7% of the generated code comments are good. We report to the developers the good code comments, whose code segments do not have an existing code comment. Amongst the reported code comments, seven have been confirmed by the developers as good and committable to the software repository while the rest await for developers' confirmation. Although our approach can generate good and committable comments, we still have to improve the yield and accuracy of the proposed approach before it can be used in practice with full automation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".