MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405602376 · doi:10.1109/scam63643.2024.00013

AUTOGENICS: Automated Generation of Context-Aware Inline Comments for Code Snippets on Programming Q&A Sites Using LLM

2024· article· en· W4405602376 on OpenAlexaff
Suborno Deb Bappon, Saikat Mondal, Banani Roy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Code generationCode (set theory)Programming languageInformation retrievalOperating systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inline comments in the source code facilitate easy comprehension, reusability, and enhanced readability. However, code snippets in answers on Q&A sites like Stack Overflow (SO) often lack comments because answerers volunteer their time and often skip comments or explanations due to time constraints. Existing studies show that these online code examples are difficult to read and understand, making it difficult for developers (espe-cially novices) to use them correctly and leading to misuse. Given these challenges, we introduced AUTOGENICS, a tool designed to integrate with SO to generate effective inline comments for code snippets in SO answers exploiting large language models (LLMs). Our contributions are threefold. First, we randomly select 400 answer code snippets (200 Python + 200 Java) from SO and gener-ate inline comments for them using LLMs (e.g., Gemini). We then manually evaluate these comments' effectiveness using four key metrics: accuracy, adequacy, conciseness, and usefulness. Overall, LLMs demonstrate promising effectiveness in generating inline comments for SO answer code snippets. Second, we surveyed 14 active SO users to perceive the effectiveness of these inline comments. The survey results are consistent with our previous manual evaluation. However, according to our evaluation, LLMs-generated comments are less effective for shorter code snippets and sometimes produce noisy comments. Third, to address the gaps, we introduced AUTOGENICS that extracts additional context from question texts and generates context-aware inline comments. It also optimizes comments by removing noise (e.g., comments in import statements and variable declarations). We evaluate the effectiveness of AUTOGENICS-generated comments using the same four metrics that outperform those of standard LLMs. AUTOGENICS might (a) enhance code comprehension with context-aware inline comments, (b) save time, and improve developers' ability to learn and reuse code more accurately.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207