MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405564895 · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112307

COMET: Generating commit messages using delta graph context representation

2024· article· en· W4405564895 on OpenAlexafffund
Abhinav Reddy Mandli, Saurabhsingh Rajput, Tushar Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systems and Software · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCommitCometContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Computer scienceGraphDeltaTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringAstrobiologyGeologyPhysicsDatabaseAerospace engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commit messages explain code changes in a commit and facilitate collaboration among developers. Several commit message generation approaches have been proposed; however, they exhibit limited success in capturing the context of code changes. We propose Comet ( C ontext-Aware C o mmit Me ssage Genera t ion) , a novel approach that captures context of code changes using a graph-based representation and leverages a transformer-based model to generate high-quality commit messages. Our proposed method utilizes delta graph that we developed to effectively represent code differences. We also introduce a customizable quality assurance module to identify optimal messages, mitigating subjectivity in commit messages. Experiments show that Comet outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in terms of bleu -norm and meteor metrics while being comparable in terms of rouge-l . Additionally, we compare the proposed approach with the popular gpt-3.5-turbo model, along with gpt-4 —the most capable GPT model, over zero-shot, one-shot, and multi-shot settings. We found Comet outperforming the GPT models, on five and four metrics respectively and provide competitive results with the two other metrics. The study has implications for researchers, tool developers, and software developers. Software developers may utilize Comet to generate context-aware commit messages. Researchers and tool developers can apply the proposed delta graph technique in similar contexts, like code review summarization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systems and SoftwareSame topicNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207