Combining Contexts from Multiple Sources for Documentation-Specific Code Example Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code example is a crucial part of good documentation. It helps the developers to understand the documentation easily and use the corresponding code unit (e.g., method) properly. However, many official documentation still lacks (good) code example and it is one of the common documentation issues as found by several studies. Hence in this paper, we consider automatic code example generation for documentation, a direction less explored by the existing research. We employ Codex, a GPT-3 based model, pre-trained on both natural and programming languages to generate code examples from source code and documentation given as input. Our preliminary investigation on 40 scikit-learn methods reveals that this approach is able to generate good code examples where 72.5% code examples were executed without error (passability) and 82.5% properly dealt with the target method and documentation (relevance). We also find that incorporation of error logs (produced by the compiler while executing a failed code example) in the input further improves the passability from 72.5% to 87.5%. Thus, our investigation sets the base of documentation-specific code example generation and warrants in-depth future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".