Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 164 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 54 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 40 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 102 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 216 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 34 tok/s Pro
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.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.