Question Selection for Multimodal Code Search Synthesis Using Probabilistic Version Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Searching the occurrences of specific code patterns (code search) is a common task in software engineering, and programming by example (PBE) techniques have been applied to ease customizing code patterns. However, previous PBE tools only synthesize programs meeting the input-output examples, which may not always align with the user intent. To bridge this gap, this paper proposesExcalibur, a multi-modal (example and natural language description) and interactive synthesizer for code search.Excaliburensures that the generated programs are correct for the provided examples (soundness) and include the user-intended program (bounded completeness). Furthermore,Excaliburhelps the user identify the user-intended program through question-answer interaction. To minimize the required interaction efforts, question selection is crucial. To improve question selection for code search, we propose probabilistic version spaces (ProbVS), in which the user-intended program’s probability is high and others are low. ProbVS combines traditional version spaces for compactly representing extensive programs and large language models (on the user-provided natural language description) for adjusting programs’ probabilities to align with users’ intents. Extensive experiments on a benchmark of 44 tasks demonstrated the effectiveness ofExcaliburand ProbVS and demystified how ProbVS affects probability distributions and how the configurable parameters affect ProbVS.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".