COMET: Generating commit messages using delta graph context representation
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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