Towards Realistic Evaluation of Commit Message Generation by Matching Online and Offline Settings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When a Commit Message Generation (CMG) system is integrated into the IDEs and other products at JetBrains, we perform online evaluation based on user acceptance of the generated messages. However, performing online experiments with every change to a CMG system is troublesome, as each iteration affects users and requires time to collect enough statistics. On the other hand, offline evaluation, a prevalent approach in the research literature, facilitates fast experiments but employs automatic metrics that are not guaranteed to represent the preferences of real users. In this work, we describe a novel way we employed to deal with this problem at JetBrains, by leveraging an online metric - the number of edits users introduce before committing the generated messages to the VCS - to select metrics for offline experiments. To support this new type of evaluation, we develop a novel markup collection tool mimicking the real workflow with a CMG system, collect a dataset with 57 pairs consisting of commit messages generated by GPT-4 and their counterparts edited by human experts, and design and verify a way to synthetically extend such a dataset. Then, we use the final dataset of 656 pairs to study how the widely used similarity metrics correlate with the online metric reflecting the real users' experience. Our results indicate that edit distance exhibits the highest correlation with the online metric, whereas commonly used similarity metrics such as BLEU and METEOR demonstrate low correlation. This contradicts the previous studies on similarity metrics for CMG, suggesting that user interactions with a CMG system in real-world settings differ significantly from the responses by human labelers within controlled environments. We release all the code and the dataset to support future research in the field: https://jb.gg/cmg-evaluation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2024.
Builds on
10 of 27 references.
References · 10
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
- 2024On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Surveycited by 244
- 2019Gradio: Hassle-Free Sharing and Testing of ML Models in the Wildcited by 178
- 2024Long Code Arena: a Set of Benchmarks for Long-Context Code Modelscited by 50
- 2021On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Studycited by 20
- 2022What Makes a Good Commit Message?cited by 20
- 2023From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completioncited by 16
- 2024Using Large Language Models for Commit Message Generation: A Preliminary Studycited by 10
- 2023A Full-fledged Commit Message Quality Checker Based on Machine Learningcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.