MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DScribe: Co-generating Unit Tests and Documentation

2022· article· en· W4282828008 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

Venue2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNature
KeywordsDocumentationComputer scienceUnit testingUnit (ring theory)Operating systemPsychologySoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test suites and documentation capture similar information despite serving distinct purposes. Such redundancy introduces the risk that the artifacts inconsistently capture specifications. We present DScribe, an approach that leverages the redundant information in tests and documentation to reduce the cost of creating them and the threat of inconsistencies. DScribe allows developers to define simple templates that jointly capture the structure to test and document a specification. They can then use these templates to generate consistent and checkable tests and documentation. By linking documentation to unit tests, DScribe ensures documentation accuracy as outdated documentation is flagged by failing tests. DScribe’s template-based approach also enforces a uniform style throughout the artifacts. Hence, in addition to reducing developer effort, DScribe improves artifact quality by ensuring consistent content and style. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUKp3-MjMog

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · 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