Predicting developers' IDE commands with machine learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a developer is writing code they are usually focused and in a state-of-mind which some refer to as flow. Breaking out of this flow can cause the developer to lose their train of thought and have to start their thought process from the beginning. This loss of thought can be caused by interruptions and sometimes slow IDE interactions. Predictive functionality has been harnessed in user applications to speed up load times, such as in Google Chrome's browser which has a feature called "Predicting Network Actions". This will pre-load web-pages that the user is most likely to click through. This mitigates the interruption that load times can introduce. In this paper we seek to make the first step towards predicting user commands in the IDE. Using the MSR 2018 Challenge Data of over 3000 developer session and over 10 million recorded events, we analyze and cleanse the data to be parsed into event series, which can then be used to train a variety of machine learning models, including a neural network, to predict user induced commands. Our highest performing model is able to obtain a 5 cross-fold validation prediction accuracy of 64%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it