MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060384944 · doi:10.1145/2597073.2597102

Syntax errors just aren't natural: improving error reporting with language models

2014· article· en· W2060384944 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSyntax errorAbstract syntax treeProgramming languageSyntaxSource codeCompilerJavaAbstract syntaxParsingConsistency (knowledge bases)ExploitNatural language processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frustrating aspect of software development is that compiler error messages often fail to locate the actual cause of a syntax error. An errant semicolon or brace can result in many errors reported throughout the file. We seek to find the actual source of these syntax errors by relying on the consistency of software: valid source code is usually repetitive and unsurprising. We exploit this consistency by constructing a simple N-gram language model of lexed source code tokens. We implemented an automatic Java syntax-error locator using the corpus of the project itself and evaluated its performance on mutated source code from several projects. Our tool, trained on the past versions of a project, can effectively augment the syntax error locations produced by the native compiler. Thus we provide a methodology and tool that exploits the naturalness of software source code to detect syntax errors alongside the parser.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207