MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165995531 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2012.20

TRIS: A Fast and Accurate Identifiers Splitting and Expansion Algorithm

2012· article· en· W2165995531 on OpenAlexaff
Latifa Guerrouj, Philippe Galinier, Yann‐Gaël Guéhéneuc, Giuliano Antoniol, Massimiliano Di Penta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentifierComputer scienceProgram comprehensionTrisUnique identifierTheoretical computer scienceRepresentation (politics)AlgorithmProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding source code identifiers, by identifying words composing them, is a necessary step for many program comprehension, reverse engineering, or redocumentation tasks. To this aim, researchers have proposed several identifier splitting and expansion approaches such as Samurai, TIDIER and more recently GenTest. The ultimate goal of such approaches is to help disambiguating conceptual information encoded in compound (or abbreviated) identifiers. This paper presents TRIS, TRee-based Identifier Splitter, a two-phases approach to split and expand program identifiers. First, TRIS pre-compiles transformed dictionary words into a tree representation, associating a cost to each transformation. In a second phase, it maps the identifier splitting/expansion problem into a minimization problem, i.e., the search of the shortest path (optimal split/expansion) in a weighted graph. We apply TRIS to a sample of 974 identifiers extracted from JHotDraw, 3,085 from Lynx, and to a sample of 489 identifiers extracted from 340 C programs. Also, we compare TRIS with GenTest on a set of 2,663 mixed Java, C and C++ identifiers. We report evidence that TRIS split (and expansion) is more accurate than state-of-the-art approaches and that it is also efficient in terms of computation time.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207