Knowledge-Guided Prompt Learning for Request Quality Assurance in Public Code Review
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Public Code Review (PCR) is developed in the Software Question Answering (SQA) community, assisting developers in exploring high-quality and efficient review services. Current methods on PCR mainly focus on the reviewer's perspective, including finding a capable reviewer, predicting comment quality, and recommending/generating review comments. However, it is not well studied that how to satisfy the review necessity requests posted by developers which can increase their visibility, which in turn acts as a prerequisite for better review responses. To this end, we propose K nowledge-guided P rompt learning for P ublic Code Review (KP-PCR) to achieve developer-based code review request quality assurance (i.e., predicting request necessity and recommending tags subtask). Specifically, we reformulate the two subtasks via 1) text prompt tuning which converts both of them into a Masked Language Model (MLM) by constructing prompt templates using hard prompt; and 2) knowledge and code prefix tuning which introduces knowledge guidance from fine-tuned large language models by soft prompt, and uses program dependence graph to characterize code snippets. Finally, both of the request necessity prediction and tag recommendation subtasks output predicted results through an answer engineering module. In addition, we further analysis the time complexity of our KP-PCR that has lightweight prefix based the operation of introducing knowledge guidance. Experimental results on the PCR dataset for the period 2011-2023 demonstrate that our KP-PCR outperforms baselines by 2.3%-8.4% in the request necessity prediction and by 1.4%-6.9% in the tag recommendation. The code implementation is released at https://github.com/WUT-IDEA/KP-PCR
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2024.
Builds on
12 of 46 references.
References · 12
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
- 2021Multimodal Few-Shot Learning with Frozen Language Modelscited by 657
- 2020GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flowcited by 600
- 2021PTR: Prompt Tuning with Rules for Text Classificationcited by 238
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2023TRACED: Execution-aware Pre-training for Source Codecited by 27
- 2022PTM4Tag: Sharpening Tag Recommendation of Stack Overflow Posts with Pre-trained Modelscited by 15
- 2018Predicting Usefulness of Code Review Comments using Textual Features and Developer Experiencecited by 13
- 2022Mining Code Review Data to Understand Waiting Times Between Acceptance and Merging: An Empirical Analysiscited by 4
- 2023Code Reviewer Recommendation for Architecture Violations: An Exploratory Studycited by 3
- 2023Factoring Expertise, Workload, and Turnover into Code Review Recommendationcited by 3
- 2024On Unified Prompt Tuning for Request Quality Assurance in Public Code Reviewcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.