Cited by 33Software Engineering ResearchNatural Language Processing TechniquesLogic, programming, and type systems

Studying the difference between natural and programming language corpora

Open access
Casalnuovo, Casey, Sagae, Kenji, Devanbu, Prem·2019·Empirical Software Engineering

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-018-9669-7

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The current methods are primarily tailored for natural language processing tasks, and it is not yet clear whether these techniques can be effectively applied within the realm of software engineering, since the source code fundamentally differs from the natural language.

    “The current methods are primarily tailored for natural language processing tasks, and it is not yet clear whether these techniques can be effectively applied within the realm of software engineering, since the source code fundamentally differs from the natural language [30].”

    From A 2030 Roadmap for Software Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M, et al (2016) Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In: OSDI, vol 16, pp 265-283
  2. Allamanis M, Barr ET, Devanbu P, Sutton C (2017) A survey of machine learning for big code and naturalness (to appear, acm computing surveys). arXiv preprint arXiv:170906182
  3. Baxter G, Frean M, Noble J, Rickerby M, Smith H, Visser M, Melton H, Tempero E (2006) Understanding the shape of java software. In: ACM Sigplan Notices, ACM, vol 41, pp 397-412
  4. Bradley DC (1978) Computational distinctions of vocabulary type. PhD thesis, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology
  5. Chelba C, Mikolov T, Schuster M, Ge Q, Brants T, Koehn P (2013) One billion word bench- mark for measuring progress in statistical language modeling. CoRR abs/1312.3005, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3005 · arXiv
  6. De Marneffe MC, MacCartney B, Manning CD, et al (2006) Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: Proceedings of LREC, Genoa Italy, vol 6, pp 449-454
  7. Gerlach M, Altmann EG (2013) Stochastic model for the vocabulary growth in natural lan- guages. Physical Review X 3(2):021006
  8. Ginter F, Hajič J, Luotolahti J, Straka M, Zeman D (2017) CoNLL 2017 shared task -auto- matically annotated raw texts and word embeddings. URL http://hdl.handle.net/ 11234/1-1989, LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics ( ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University
  9. Heafield K (2011) Kenlm: Faster and smaller language model queries. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 187-197
  10. Hellendoorn VJ, Devanbu P (2017) Are deep neural networks the best choice for modeling source code? In: Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. ESEC/FSE, pp 763-773
  11. Khanh Dam H, Tran T, Pham T (2016) A deep language model for software code. arXiv preprint arXiv:160802715
  12. Louridas P, Spinellis D, Vlachos V (2008) Power laws in software. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 18(1):2
  13. Manning CD, Schütze H (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT press
  14. Marcus MP, Marcinkiewicz MA, Santorini B (1993) Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank. Comput Linguist 19(2):313-330, URL http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=972470.972475
  15. Vinyals O, Kaiser Ł, Koo T, Petrov S, Sutskever I, Hinton G (2015) Grammar as a foreign language. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp 2773-2781
  16. Zipf G (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambody Mus Am Arch and Ethnol(Harvard Univ), Papers 19:1-125

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Casalnuovo, C., Sagae, K., & Devanbu, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Casalnuovo, Casey
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Published
2019-01-11
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
1823-1868
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
OpenAlex
W2807585453
Cited by
33
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Empirical Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1414172)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
Keywords
source code, natural language corpora, programming language syntax, technical jargon, second language writing, code completion, code readability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review