Automatic Generation of Pull Request Descriptions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Enabled by the pull-based development model, developers can easily contribute to a project through pull requests (PRs). When creating a PR, developers can add a free-form description to describe what changes are made in this PR and/or why. Such a description is helpful for reviewers and other developers to gain a quick understanding of the PR without touching the details and may reduce the possibility of the PR being ignored or rejected. However, developers sometimes neglect to write descriptions for PRs. For example, in our collected dataset with over 333K PRs, more than 34% of the PR descriptions are empty. To alleviate this problem, we propose an approach to automatically generate PR descriptions based on the commit messages and the added source code comments in the PRs. We regard this problem as a text summarization problem and solve it using a novel sequence-to-sequence model. To cope with out-of-vocabulary words in software artifacts and bridge the gap between the training loss function of the sequence-to-sequence model and the evaluation metric ROUGE, which has been shown to correspond to human evaluation, we integrate the pointer generator and directly optimize for ROUGE using reinforcement learning and a special loss function. We build a dataset with over 41K PRs and evaluate our approach on this dataset through ROUGE and a human evaluation. Our evaluation results show that our approach outperforms two baselines by significant margins.
Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
13 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyondcited by 35
- 2021Code Structure Guided Transformer for Source Code Summarizationcited by 29
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysiscited by 23
- 2021On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Studycited by 20
- 2024Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challengescited by 18
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
- 2021Embedding API Dependency Graph for Neural Code Generationcited by 5
- 2022On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineeringcited by 5
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2023ARIST: An Effective API Argument Recommendation Approachcited by 2
- 2024Automatic Pull Request Description Generation Using LLMs: A T5 Model Approachcited by 2
- 2022A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service for Boosting Domain-specific NLP Taskscited by 1
1 more
- 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review17 May 2026
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models20 Mar 2025
- 2024Automatic Pull Request Description Generation Using LLMs: A T5 Model Approach1 Aug 2024
- 2024Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challenges24 May 2024
- 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyond3 May 2024
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completion15 Aug 2023
- 2023ARIST: An Effective API Argument Recommendation Approach11 Jun 2023
- 2022A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service for Boosting Domain-specific NLP Tasks10 Dec 2022
- 2022On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineering31 Mar 2022
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysis18 Oct 2021
- 2021On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Study12 Jul 2021
- 2021Code Structure Guided Transformer for Source Code Summarization19 Apr 2021
1 more
- 2021Embedding API Dependency Graph for Neural Code Generation29 Mar 2021
- 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyondcited by 35
- 2021Code Structure Guided Transformer for Source Code Summarizationcited by 29
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysiscited by 23
- 2021On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Studycited by 20
- 2024Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challengescited by 18
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
- 2021Embedding API Dependency Graph for Neural Code Generationcited by 5
- 2022On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineeringcited by 5
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2023ARIST: An Effective API Argument Recommendation Approachcited by 2
- 2024Automatic Pull Request Description Generation Using LLMs: A T5 Model Approachcited by 2
- 2022A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service for Boosting Domain-specific NLP Taskscited by 1
- 2025CodeReviewQA: The Code Review Comprehension Assessment for Large Language Models20 Mar 2025
- 2024Automatic Pull Request Description Generation Using LLMs: A T5 Model Approach1 Aug 2024
- 2024Text Generation: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Evaluation, and Challenges24 May 2024
- 2024Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyond3 May 2024
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completion15 Aug 2023
- 2023ARIST: An Effective API Argument Recommendation Approach11 Jun 2023
- 2022A Unified Knowledge Graph Augmentation Service for Boosting Domain-specific NLP Tasks10 Dec 2022
- 2022On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineering31 Mar 2022
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysis18 Oct 2021
- 2021On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Study12 Jul 2021
- 2021Code Structure Guided Transformer for Source Code Summarization19 Apr 2021
- 2021Embedding API Dependency Graph for Neural Code Generation29 Mar 2021