Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Automating Method Naming with Context-Aware Prompt-Tuning (2303.05771v1)

Published 10 Mar 2023 in cs.SE

Abstract: Method names are crucial to program comprehension and maintenance. Recently, many approaches have been proposed to automatically recommend method names and detect inconsistent names. Despite promising, their results are still sub-optimal considering the three following drawbacks: 1) These models are mostly trained from scratch, learning two different objectives simultaneously. The misalignment between two objectives will negatively affect training efficiency and model performance. 2) The enclosing class context is not fully exploited, making it difficult to learn the abstract function of the method. 3) Current method name consistency checking methods follow a generate-then-compare process, which restricts the accuracy as they highly rely on the quality of generated names and face difficulty measuring the semantic consistency. In this paper, we propose an approach named AUMENA to AUtomate MEthod NAming tasks with context-aware prompt-tuning. Unlike existing deep learning based approaches, our model first learns the contextualized representation(i.e., class attributes) of PL and NL through the pre-training model, then fully exploits the capacity and knowledge of LLM with prompt-tuning to precisely detect inconsistent method names and recommend more accurate names. To better identify semantically consistent names, we model the method name consistency checking task as a two-class classification problem, avoiding the limitation of previous similarity-based consistency checking approaches. The experimental results reflect that AUMENA scores 68.6%, 72.0%, 73.6%, 84.7% on four datasets of method name recommendation, surpassing the state-of-the-art baseline by 8.5%, 18.4%, 11.0%, 12.0%, respectively. And our approach scores 80.8% accuracy on method name consistency checking, reaching an 5.5% outperformance. All data and trained models are publicly available.

Citations (6)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.