TreeGen: A Tree-Based Transformer Architecture for Code Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A code generation system generates programming language code based on an input natural language description. State-of-the-art approaches rely on neural networks for code generation. However, these code generators suffer from two problems. One is the long dependency problem, where a code element often depends on another far-away code element. A variable reference, for example, depends on its definition, which may appear quite a few lines before. The other problem is structure modeling, as programs contain rich structural information. In this paper, we propose a novel tree-based neural architecture, TreeGen, for code generation. TreeGen uses the attention mechanism of Transformers to alleviate the long-dependency problem, and introduces a novel AST reader (encoder) to incorporate grammar rules and AST structures into the network. We evaluated TreeGen on a Python benchmark, HearthStone, and two semantic parsing benchmarks, ATIS and GEO. TreeGen outperformed the previous state-of-the-art approach by 4.5 percentage points on HearthStone, and achieved the best accuracy among neural network-based approaches on ATIS (89.1%) and GEO (89.6%). We also conducted an ablation test to better understand each component of our model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".