Are we building on the rock? on the importance of data preprocessing for code summarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code summarization, the task of generating useful comments given the code, has long been of interest. Most of the existing code summarization models are trained and validated on widely-used code comment benchmark datasets. However, little is known about the quality of the benchmark datasets built from real-world projects. Are the benchmark datasets as good as expected? To bridge the gap, we conduct a systematic research to assess and improve the quality of four benchmark datasets widely used for code summarization tasks. First, we propose an automated code-comment cleaning tool that can accurately detect noisy data caused by inappropriate data preprocessing operations from existing benchmark datasets. Then, we apply the tool to further assess the data quality of the four benchmark datasets, based on the detected noises. Finally, we conduct comparative experiments to investigate the impact of noisy data on the performance of code summarization models. The results show that these data preprocessing noises widely exist in all four benchmark datasets, and removing these noisy data leads to a significant improvement on the performance of code summarization. We believe that the findings and insights will enable a better understanding of data quality in code summarization tasks, and pave the way for relevant research and practice.
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 | 0.049 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".