Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2024
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866911117688700928 |
|---|---|
| author | Sun, Weisong Miao, Yun Li, Yuekang Zhang, Hongyu Fang, Chunrong Liu, Yi Deng, Gelei Liu, Yang Chen, Zhenyu |
| author_facet | Sun, Weisong Miao, Yun Li, Yuekang Zhang, Hongyu Fang, Chunrong Liu, Yi Deng, Gelei Liu, Yang Chen, Zhenyu |
| contents | To support software developers in understanding and maintaining programs, various automatic (source) code summarization techniques have been proposed to generate a concise natural language summary (i.e., comment) for a given code snippet. Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has led to a great boost in the performance of code-related tasks. In this paper, we undertake a systematic and comprehensive study on code summarization in the era of LLMs, which covers multiple aspects involved in the workflow of LLM-based code summarization. Specifically, we begin by examining prevalent automated evaluation methods for assessing the quality of summaries generated by LLMs and find that the results of the GPT-4 evaluation method are most closely aligned with human evaluation. Then, we explore the effectiveness of five prompting techniques (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, critique, and expert) in adapting LLMs to code summarization tasks. Contrary to expectations, advanced prompting techniques may not outperform simple zero-shot prompting. Next, we investigate the impact of LLMs' model settings (including top\_p and temperature parameters) on the quality of generated summaries. We find the impact of the two parameters on summary quality varies by the base LLM and programming language, but their impacts are similar. Moreover, we canvass LLMs' abilities to summarize code snippets in distinct types of programming languages. The results reveal that LLMs perform suboptimally when summarizing code written in logic programming languages compared to other language types. Finally, we unexpectedly find that CodeLlama-Instruct with 7B parameters can outperform advanced GPT-4 in generating summaries describing code implementation details and asserting code properties. We hope that our findings can provide a comprehensive understanding of code summarization in the era of LLMs. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2407_07959 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models Sun, Weisong Miao, Yun Li, Yuekang Zhang, Hongyu Fang, Chunrong Liu, Yi Deng, Gelei Liu, Yang Chen, Zhenyu Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence 68-04 D.2.3; I.2.7 To support software developers in understanding and maintaining programs, various automatic (source) code summarization techniques have been proposed to generate a concise natural language summary (i.e., comment) for a given code snippet. Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has led to a great boost in the performance of code-related tasks. In this paper, we undertake a systematic and comprehensive study on code summarization in the era of LLMs, which covers multiple aspects involved in the workflow of LLM-based code summarization. Specifically, we begin by examining prevalent automated evaluation methods for assessing the quality of summaries generated by LLMs and find that the results of the GPT-4 evaluation method are most closely aligned with human evaluation. Then, we explore the effectiveness of five prompting techniques (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, critique, and expert) in adapting LLMs to code summarization tasks. Contrary to expectations, advanced prompting techniques may not outperform simple zero-shot prompting. Next, we investigate the impact of LLMs' model settings (including top\_p and temperature parameters) on the quality of generated summaries. We find the impact of the two parameters on summary quality varies by the base LLM and programming language, but their impacts are similar. Moreover, we canvass LLMs' abilities to summarize code snippets in distinct types of programming languages. The results reveal that LLMs perform suboptimally when summarizing code written in logic programming languages compared to other language types. Finally, we unexpectedly find that CodeLlama-Instruct with 7B parameters can outperform advanced GPT-4 in generating summaries describing code implementation details and asserting code properties. We hope that our findings can provide a comprehensive understanding of code summarization in the era of LLMs. |
| title | Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models |
| topic | Software Engineering Artificial Intelligence 68-04 D.2.3; I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07959 |