MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411271784 · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00110

TriGraph: A Probabilistic Subgraph-Based Model for Visual Code Completion in Pure Data

2025· article· en· W4411271784 on OpenAlexafffund
Anisha Islam, Abram Hindle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicCode (set theory)Programming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pure Data (PD) is a visual programming language for computer music that allows users to create applications through a graph-based, drag-and-drop interface, using objects and connections to manage program flow. There is a lack of tool support for computer musicians using PD, particularly for code completion. In this paper, we introduce TriGraph, a graph-based probabilistic model specifically designed for code completion in PD. TriGraph uses statistical analysis of 2-node and 3-node subgraph frequencies to predict nodes and connections in PD graphs. Using a dataset of parsed PD files, we train and evaluate 5 TriGraph models, assessing their performance in predicting nodes and edges in PD graphs. Our evaluations indicate that the models achieve an average Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) score of 0.39 for node prediction, placing the correct answer within the top 3 suggestions, and outperforming the n-grambased KenLM model on similar tasks. For edge prediction, the models achieve an average MRR score of 0.57, with results showing that incorporating both 2 -node and 3-node subgraphs yields better results than using only 3 -node subgraphs. These findings suggest that TriGraph could enhance the productivity of PD programmers by providing code completion support that may speed up development, reduce errors, and assist in discovering available options. These potential benefits highlight its promise as a valuable support tool for end-user programmers in graphical environments.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207