Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Albert Ziegler 0001

dblp:61/607 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-0937-7464ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 50% Software maintenance and evolution · 50%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Deep learning architectures and training · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › program comprehension
code exploration
0.812024
Follow-Up Attention: An Empirical Study of Developer and Neural Model Code Exploration · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.812024
Follow-Up Attention: An Empirical Study of Developer and Neural Model Code Exploration · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism
0.212024
Follow-Up Attention: An Empirical Study of Developer and Neural Model Code Exploration · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model · 1.5attention analysis · 1.5eye-tracking · 0.8eye tracking · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Follow-Up Attention: An Empirical Study of Developer and Neural Model Code Exploration
abstract
Recent neural models of code, such as OpenAI Codex and AlphaCode, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency at code generation due to the underlying attention mechanism. However, it often remains unclear how the models actually process code, and to what extent their reasoning and the way their attention mechanism scans the code matches the patterns of developers. A poor understanding of the model reasoning process limits the way in which current neural models are leveraged today, so far mostly for their raw prediction. To fill this gap, this work studies how the processed attention signal of three open large language models - CodeGen, InCoder and GPT-J - agrees with how developers look at and explore code when each answers the same sensemaking questions about code. Furthermore, we contribute an open-source eye-tracking dataset comprising 92 manually-labeled sessions from 25 developers engaged in sensemaking tasks. We empirically evaluate five heuristics that do not use the attention and ten attention-based post-processing approaches of the attention signal of CodeGen against our ground truth of developers exploring code, including the novel concept offollow-up attentionwhich exhibits the highest agreement between model and human attention. Our follow-up attention method can predict the next line a developer will look at with 47% accuracy. This outperforms the baseline prediction accuracy of 42.3%, which uses the session history of other developers to recommend the next line. These results demonstrate the potential of leveraging the attention signal of pre-trained models for effective code exploration.
Matteo Paltenghi, Rahul Pandita, Austin Z. Henley, Albert Ziegler 0001
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.4
2012 Generalizing realizability and Heyting models for constructive set theory
Albert Ziegler 0001
Ann. Pure Appl. Log.1