Automatic Comment Generation via Multi-Pass Deliberation
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
Deliberation is a common and natural behavior in human daily life. For example, when writing papers or articles, we usually first write drafts, and then iteratively polish them until satisfied. In light of such a human cognitive process, we propose DECOM, which is a multi-pass deliberation framework for automatic comment generation. DECOM consists of multiple Deliberation Models and one Evaluation Model. Given a code snippet, we first extract keywords from the code and retrieve a similar code fragment from a pre-defined corpus. Then, we treat the comment of the retrieved code as the initial draft and input it with the code and keywords into DECOM to start the iterative deliberation process. At each deliberation, the deliberation model polishes the draft and generates a new comment. The evaluation model measures the quality of the newly generated comment to determine whether to end the iterative process or not. When the iterative process is terminated, the best-generated comment will be selected as the target comment. Our approach is evaluated on two real-world datasets in Java (87K) and Python (108K), and experiment results show that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines. A human evaluation study also confirms the comments generated by DECOM tend to be more readable, informative, and useful.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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