Supporting program comprehension by generating abstract code summary tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading through code, finding relevant methods, classes and files takes a significant portion of software development time. Having good tool support for this code browsing activity can reduce human effort and increase overall developer productivity. To help with program comprehension activities, building an abstract code summary of a software system from its call graph is an active research area. A call graph is a visual representation of the caller-callee relationships between different methods of a software system. Call graphs can be difficult to comprehend for a large code-base. Previous work by Gharibi et al. on abstract code summarizing suggested using the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) tree for understanding the codebase. Each node in the tree is associated with the top five method names. When we replicated the previous approach, we observed that the number of nodes in the AHC tree is burdensome for developers to explore. We also noticed only five method names for each node is not sufficient to comprehend an abstract node. We propose a technique to transform the AHC tree using cluster flattening for natural grouping and reduced nodes. We also generate a natural text summary for each abstract node derived from method comments. In order to evaluate our proposed approach, we collected developers' opinions about the abstract code summary tree based on their codebase. The evaluation results confirm that our approach can not only help developers get an overview of their codebases but also could assist them in doing specific software maintenance tasks.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".