MESIA: Understanding and Leveraging Supplementary Nature of Method-level Comments for Automatic Comment Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Code comments are important for developers in program comprehension. In scenarios of comprehending and reusing a method, developers expect code comments to provide supplementary information beyond the method signature. However, the extent of such supplementary information varies a lot in different code comments. In this paper, we raise the awareness of the supplementary nature of method-level comments and propose a new metric named MESIA (Mean Supplementary Information Amount) to assess the extent of supplementary information that a code comment can provide. With the MESIA metric, we conduct experiments on a popular code-comment dataset and three common types of neural approaches to generate method-level comments. Our experimental results demonstrate the value of our proposed work with a number of findings. (1) Small-MESIA comments occupy around 20% of the dataset and mostly fall into only the WHAT comment category. (2) Being able to provide various kinds of essential information, large-MESIA comments in the dataset are difficult for existing neural approaches to generate. (3) We can improve the capability of existing neural approaches to generate large-MESIA comments by reducing the proportion of small-MESIA comments in the training set. (4) The retrained model can generate large-MESIA comments that convey essential meaningful supplementary information for methods in the small-MESIA test set, but will get a lower BLEU score in evaluation. These findings indicate that with good training data, auto-generated comments can sometimes even surpass human-written reference comments, and having no appropriate ground truth for evaluation is an issue that needs to be addressed by future work on automatic comment generation.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2024.
Builds on
22 of 59 references.
References · 22
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 890
- 2018code2seq: Generating Sequences from Structured Representations of Codecited by 177
- 2020A Transformer-based Approach for Source Code Summarizationcited by 129
- 2022Few-shot training LLMs for project-specific code-summarizationcited by 128
- 2023Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPTcited by 126
- 2018Improving Automatic Source Code Summarization via Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 99
- 2019A Neural Model for Generating Natural Language Summaries of Program Subroutinescited by 76
- 2023Large Language Models are Few-Shot Summarizers: Multi-Intent Comment Generation via In-Context Learningcited by 71
- 2021Studying the Usage of Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer to Support Code-Related Taskscited by 70
- 2021On the Evaluation of Neural Code Summarizationcited by 47
- 2022Automatic Code Documentation Generation Using GPT-3cited by 37
10 more
- 2019Retrieve and Refine: Exemplar-based Neural Comment Generationcited by 36
- 2023Automatic Code Summarization via ChatGPT: How Far Are We?cited by 34
- 2020Code to Comment "Translation": Data, Metrics, Baselining & Evaluationcited by 28
- 2022Are We Building on the Rock? On the Importance of Data Preprocessing for Code Summarizationcited by 22
- 2023EditSum: A Retrieve-and-Edit Framework for Source Code Summarizationcited by 18
- 2023Developer-Intent Driven Code Comment Generationcited by 16
- 2019A Survey of Automatic Generation of Source Code Comments: Algorithms and Techniquescited by 15
- 2021AST-Transformer: Encoding Abstract Syntax Trees Efficiently for Code Summarizationcited by 11
- 2022A Decade of Code Comment Quality Assessment: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 5
- 2021Speculative Analysis for Quality Assessment of Code Commentscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.