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. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Hariharan Sezhiyan

dblp:267/3730 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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
Program synthesis and code generation · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program synthesis and code generation › code documentation generation
code comment generation
0.412020
Code to Comment "Translation": Data, Metrics, Baselining & Evaluation · ASE 2020
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.112020
Code to Comment "Translation": Data, Metrics, Baselining & Evaluation · ASE 2020

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

deep learning · 0.9BLEU · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Code to Comment "Translation": Data, Metrics, Baselining & Evaluation
abstract
The relationship of comments to code, and in particular, the task of generating useful comments given the code, has long been of interest. The earliest approaches have been based on strong syntactic theories of comment-structures, and relied on textual templates. More recently, researchers have applied deep-learning methods to this task---specifically, trainable generative translation models which are known to work very well for Natural Language translation (e.g., from German to English). We carefully examine the underlying assumption here: that the task of generating comments sufficiently resembles the task of translating between natural languages, and so similar models and evaluation metrics could be used. We analyze several recent code-comment datasets for this task: CodeNN, DeepCom, FunCom, and DocString. We compare them with WMT19, a standard dataset frequently used to train state-of-the-art natural language translators. We found some interesting differences between the code-comment data and the WMT19 natural language data. Next, we describe and conduct some studies to calibrate BLEU (which is commonly used as a measure of comment quality). using "affinity pairs" of methods, from different projects, in the same project, in the same class, etc; Our study suggests that the current performance on some datasets might need to be improved substantially. We also argue that fairly naive information retrieval (IR) methods do well enough at this task to be considered a reasonable baseline. Finally, we make some suggestions on how our findings might be used in future research in this area.
David Gros 0001, Hariharan Sezhiyan, Premkumar T. Devanbu, Zhou Yu 0005
ASE2