The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic documentation generation via source code summarization of method context
Abstract
A documentation generator is a programming tool that creates documentation for software by analyzing the statements and comments in the software's source code. While many of these tools are manual, in that they require specially-formatted metadata written by programmers, new research has made inroads towards automatic generation of documentation. These approaches work by stitching together keywords from the source code into readable natural language sentences. These approaches have been shown to be effective, but carry a key limitation: the generated documents do not explain the source code's context. They can describe the behavior of a Java method, but not why the method exists or what role it plays in the software. In this paper, we propose a technique that includes this context by analyzing how the Java methods are invoked. In a user study, we found that programmers benefit from our generated documentation because it includes context information.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
Towards automatically generating summary comments for Java methods
Sridhara, G., Hill, E., Muppaneni, D., Pollock, L., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering · doi:10.1145/1858996.1859006 · Cited by 514
The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: a survey
Forward, A., & Lethbridge, T. C. (2002) · Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Document engineering · doi:10.1145/585058.585065 · Cited by 268
Automatically documenting program changes
Buse, R. P. L., & Weimer, W. R. (2010) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering · doi:10.1145/1858996.1859005 · Cited by 219
Stacksplorer: call graph navigation helps increasing code maintenance efficiency
Karrer, T., Krämer, J.-P., Diehl, J., Hartmann, B., & Borchers, J. (2011) · Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/2047196.2047225 · Cited by 48
Cited by
Measuring Program Comprehension: A Large-Scale Field Study with Professionals
Xia, X., Bao, L., Lo, D., Xing, Z., Hassan, A. E., & Li, S. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2017.2734091 · Cited by 326
Software Documentation Issues Unveiled
Aghajani, E., Nagy, C., Vega-Marquez, O. L., Linares-Vasquez, M., Moreno, L., Bavota, G., & Lanza, M. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00122 · Cited by 195
Reassessing automatic evaluation metrics for code summarization tasks
Roy, D., Fakhoury, S., & Arnaoudova, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3468264.3468588 · Cited by 106
Automatic Code Documentation Generation Using GPT-3
Khan, J. Y., & Uddin, G. (2022) · Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3551349.3559548 · Cited by 96
Prana, G. A. A., Ford, D., Rastogi, A., Lo, D., Purandare, R., & Nagappan, N. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3092813 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- McBurney, P. W., & McMillan, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Program Comprehension
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-06-02
- Pages
- 279-290
- OpenAlex
- W1970407057
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.25
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
