CCCI: Code Completion with Contextual Information for Complex Data Transfer Tasks Using Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike code generation, which involves creating code from scratch, code completion focuses on integrating new lines or blocks of code into an existing codebase. This process requires a deep understanding of the surrounding context, such as variable scope, object models, API calls, and database relations, to produce accurate results. These complex contextual dependencies make code completion a particularly challenging problem. Current models and approaches often fail to effectively incorporate such context, leading to inaccurate completions with low acceptance rates (around 30%). For tasks like data transfer, which rely heavily on specific relationships and data structures, acceptance rates drop even further. This study introduces CCCI, a novel method for generating context-aware code completions specifically designed to address data transfer tasks. By integrating contextual information, such as database table relationships, object models, and library details into Large Language Models (LLMs), CCCI improves the accuracy of code completions. We evaluate CCCI using 289 Java snippets, extracted from over 819 operational scripts in an industrial setting. The results demonstrate that CCCI achieved a 49.1% Build Pass rate and a 41.0% CodeBLEU score, comparable to state-of-the-art methods that often struggle with complex task completion.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".