A Replication Package For The Paper "Improved Retrieval of Programming Solutions with Code Examples Using a Multi-featured Score"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers often depend on code search engines to obtain solutions for their programming tasks. However, finding an expected solution containing code examples along with their explanations is challenging due to several issues. There is a vocabulary mismatch between the search keywords (the query) and the appropriate solutions. Semantic gap may increase for similar bag of words due to antonyms and negation. Moreover, documents retrieved by search engines might not contain solutions containing both code examples and their explanations. So, we propose CRAR (Crowd Answer Recommender) to circumvent those issues aiming at improving retrieval of relevant answers from Stack Overflow containing not only the expected code examples for the given task but also their explanations. Given a programming task, we investigate the effectiveness of combining information retrieval techniques along with a set of features to enhance the ranking of important threads (i.e., the units containing questions along with their answers) for the given task and then selects relevant answers contained in those threads, including semantic features, like word embeddings and sentence embeddings, for instance, a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). CRAR also leverages social aspects of Stack Overflow discussions like popularity to select relevant answers for the tasks. Our experimental evaluation shows that the combination of the different features performs better than each one individually. We also compare the retrieval performance with the state-of-art CROKAGE (Crowd Knowledge Answer Generator), which is also a system aimed at retrieving relevant answers from Stack Overflow. We show that CRAR outperforms CROKAGE in Mean Reciprocal Rank and Mean Recall with small and medium effect sizes, respectively.
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 | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.666 | 0.368 |
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".