Automating Method Naming with Context-Aware Prompt-Tuning
March 10, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Jie Zhu, Lingwei Li, Li Yang, Xiaoxiao Ma, Chun Zuo
arXiv ID
2303.05771
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
9
Venue
IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Method names are crucial to program comprehension and maintenance. Recently, many approaches have been proposed to automatically recommend method names and detect inconsistent names. Despite promising, their results are still sub-optimal considering the three following drawbacks: 1) These models are mostly trained from scratch, learning two different objectives simultaneously. The misalignment between two objectives will negatively affect training efficiency and model performance. 2) The enclosing class context is not fully exploited, making it difficult to learn the abstract function of the method. 3) Current method name consistency checking methods follow a generate-then-compare process, which restricts the accuracy as they highly rely on the quality of generated names and face difficulty measuring the semantic consistency. In this paper, we propose an approach named AUMENA to AUtomate MEthod NAming tasks with context-aware prompt-tuning. Unlike existing deep learning based approaches, our model first learns the contextualized representation(i.e., class attributes) of PL and NL through the pre-training model, then fully exploits the capacity and knowledge of large language model with prompt-tuning to precisely detect inconsistent method names and recommend more accurate names. To better identify semantically consistent names, we model the method name consistency checking task as a two-class classification problem, avoiding the limitation of previous similarity-based consistency checking approaches. The experimental results reflect that AUMENA scores 68.6%, 72.0%, 73.6%, 84.7% on four datasets of method name recommendation, surpassing the state-of-the-art baseline by 8.5%, 18.4%, 11.0%, 12.0%, respectively. And our approach scores 80.8% accuracy on method name consistency checking, reaching an 5.5% outperformance. All data and trained models are publicly available.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted