<i>LoGenText-Plus</i> : Improving Neural Machine Translation Based Logging Texts Generation with Syntactic Templates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers insert logging statements in the source code to collect important runtime information about software systems. The textual descriptions in logging statements (i.e., logging texts) are printed during system executions and exposed to multiple stakeholders including developers, operators, users, and regulatory authorities. Writing proper logging texts is an important but often challenging task for developers. Prior studies find that developers spend significant efforts modifying their logging texts. However, despite extensive research on automated logging suggestions, research on suggesting logging texts rarely exists. To fill this knowledge gap, we first propose LoGenText (initially reported in our conference paper), an automated approach that uses neural machine translation (NMT) models to generate logging texts by translating the related source code into short textual descriptions. LoGenText takes the preceding source code of a logging text as the input and considers other context information, such as the location of the logging statement, to automatically generate the logging text. LoGenText ’s evaluation on 10 open source projects indicates that the approach is promising for automatic logging text generation and significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art approach. Furthermore, we extend LoGenText to LoGenText-Plus by incorporating the syntactic templates of the logging texts. Different from LoGenText , LoGenText-Plus decomposes the logging text generation process into two stages. LoGenText-Plus first adopts an NMT model to generate the syntactic template of the target logging text. Then LoGenText-Plus feeds the source code and the generated template as the input to another NMT model for logging text generation. We also evaluate LoGenText-Plus on the same 10 projects and observe that it outperforms LoGenText on 9 of them. According to a human evaluation from developers’ perspectives, the logging texts generated by LoGenText-Plus have a higher quality than those generated by LoGenText and the prior baseline approach. By manually examining the generated logging texts, we then identify five aspects that can serve as guidance for writing or generating good logging texts. Our work is an important step toward the automated generation of logging statements, which can potentially save developers’ efforts and improve the quality of software logging. Our findings shed light on research opportunities that leverage advances in NMT techniques for automated generation and suggestion of logging statements.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".