research-article

Improving automated source code summarization via an eye-tracking study of programmers

Authors:

Sidney D'MelloAuthors Info & Claims

ICSE 2014: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering

Pages 390 - 401

https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568247

Published: 31 May 2014 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

Source Code Summarization is an emerging technology for automatically generating brief descriptions of code. Current summarization techniques work by selecting a subset of the statements and keywords from the code, and then including information from those statements and keywords in the summary. The quality of the summary depends heavily on the process of selecting the subset: a high-quality selection would contain the same statements and keywords that a programmer would choose. Unfortunately, little evidence exists about the statements and keywords that programmers view as important when they summarize source code. In this paper, we present an eye-tracking study of 10 professional Java programmers in which the programmers read Java methods and wrote English summaries of those methods. We apply the findings to build a novel summarization tool. Then, we evaluate this tool and provide evidence to support the development of source code summarization systems.

References

[1]

E. M. Altmann. Near-term memory in programming: a simulation-based analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(2):189 – 210, 2001.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

K. Anjaneyulu and J. Anderson. The advantages of data flow diagrams for beginning programming. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, and G. McCalla, editors, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, volume 608 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 585–592. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1992.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

J. Aponte and A. Marcus. Improving traceability link recovery methods through software artifact summarization. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, TEFSE ’11, pages 46–49, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

M. S. Bansal and D. Fernández-Baca. Computing distances between partial rankings. Inf. Process. Lett., 109(4):238–241, Jan. 2009.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

R. Bednarik and M. Tukiainen. An eye-tracking methodology for characterizing program comprehension processes. In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, ETRA ’’06, pages 125–132, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

R. Bednarik and M. Tukiainen. Temporal eye-tracking data: evolution of debugging strategies with multiple representations. In Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, ETRA ’08, pages 99–102, New York, NY, USA, 2008.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

L. Bergman, V. Castelli, T. Lau, and D. Oblinger. Docwizards: a system for authoring follow-me documentation wizards. In Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’05, pages 191–200, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

D. Binkley, M. Davis, D. Lawrie, J. I. Maletic, C. Morrell, and B. Sharif. The impact of identifier style on effort and comprehension. Empirical Softw. Engg., 18(2):219–276, Apr. 2013.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

J. Brandt, M. Dontcheva, M. Weskamp, and S. R. Klemmer. Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’10, pages 513–522, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

H. Burden and R. Heldal. Natural language generation from class diagrams. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, MoDeVVa, pages 8:1–8:8, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[11]

R. P. Buse and W. R. Weimer. Automatic documentation inference for exceptions. In Proceedings of the 2008 international symposium on Software testing and analysis, ISSTA ’08, pages 273–282.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[12]

R. P. Buse and W. R. Weimer. Automatically documenting program changes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering, ASE ’10, pages 33–42.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

M. E. Crosby and J. Stelovsky. How do we read algorithms? a case study. Computer, 23(1):24–35, Jan.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[14]

J. W. Davison, D. M. Mancl, and W. F. Opdyke. Understanding and addressing the essential costs of evolving systems. Bell Labs Technical Journal, pages 44–54, 2000.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[15]

S. C. B. de Souza, N. Anquetil, and K. M. de Oliveira. A study of the documentation essential to software maintenance. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual international conference on Design of communication: documenting & designing for pervasive information, SIGDOC ’’05, pages 68–75, New York, NY, USA, 2005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

D. Dearman, A. Cox, and M. Fisher. Adding control-flow to a visual data-flow representation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, IWPC ’05, pages 297–306, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

C. Douce. Long term comprehension of software systems: A methodology for study. Proc. Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 2001.

Google Scholar

[18]

B. Eddy, J. Robinson, N. Kraft, and J. Carver. Evaluating source code summarization techniques: Replication and expansion. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’13, 2013.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[19]

R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Comparing top k lists. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, SODA ’03, pages 28–36, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

R. K. Fjeldstad and W. T. Hamlen. Application Program Maintenance Study: Report to Our Respondents. In Proceedings GUIDE 48, Apr. 1983.

Google Scholar

[21]

B. Fluri, M. Wursch, and H. C. Gall. Do code and comments co-evolve? on the relation between source code and comment changes. In Proceedings of the 14th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE ’07, pages 70–79, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[22]

A. Forward and T. C. Lethbridge. The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: a survey. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Document engineering, DocEng ’02, pages 26–33, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

V. M. González and G. Mark. ”constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness”: managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’04, pages 113–120, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[24]

A. Guzzi. Documenting and sharing knowledge about code. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, pages 1535–1538, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[25]

G. Gweon, L. Bergman, V. Castelli, and R. K. E. Bellamy. Evaluating an automated tool to assist evolutionary document generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VLHCC ’07, pages 243–248, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[26]

S. Haiduc, J. Aponte, L. Moreno, and A. Marcus. On the use of automated text summarization techniques for summarizing source code. In Proceedings of the 2010 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE ’10, pages 35–44, Washington, DC, USA, 2010. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[27]

R. Holmes and R. J. Walker. Systematizing pragmatic software reuse. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 21(4):20:1–20:44, Feb. 2013.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[28]

M. Kajko-Mattsson. A survey of documentation practice within corrective maintenance. Empirical Softw. Engg., 10(1):31–55, Jan. 2005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[29]

M. Kim, D. Notkin, D. Grossman, and G. Wilson. Identifying and summarizing systematic code changes via rule inference. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(1):45 –62, Jan. 2013.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[30]

A. J. Ko and B. A. Myers. A framework and methodology for studying the causes of software errors in programming systems. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 16(1ˆ a ˘ A¸ S2):41 – 84, 2005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[31]

A. J. Ko, B. A. Myers, M. J. Coblenz, and H. H. Aung. An exploratory study of how developers seek, relate, and collect relevant information during software maintenance tasks. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 32(12):971–987, Dec. 2006.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[32]

G. Kotonya, S. Lock, and J. Mariani. Opportunistic reuse: Lessons from scrapheap software development. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, CBSE ’08, pages 302–309, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[33]

D. Kramer. Api documentation from source code comments: a case study of javadoc. In Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computer documentation, SIGDOC ’99, pages 147–153, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

J.-P. Krämer, J. Kurz, T. Karrer, and J. Borchers. Blaze. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, pages 1457–1458, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[35]

A. Lakhotia. Understanding someone else’s code: analysis of experiences. J. Syst. Softw., 23(3):269–275.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[36]

T. D. LaToza, G. Venolia, and R. DeLine. Maintaining mental models: a study of developer work habits. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, ICSE ’06, pages 492–501, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[37]

T. Lethbridge, J. Singer, and A. Forward. How software engineers use documentation: the state of the practice. Software, IEEE, 20(6):35–39, 2003.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[38]

D. C. Littman, J. Pinto, S. Letovsky, and E. Soloway. Mental models and software maintenance. Journal of Systems and Software, 7(4):341 – 355, 1987.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[39]

S. Mani, R. Catherine, V. S. Sinha, and A. Dubey. Ausum: approach for unsupervised bug report summarization. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE ’12, pages 11:1–11:11, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

C. McMillan, M. Grechanik, D. Poshyvanyk, Q. Xie, and C. Fu. Portfolio: finding relevant functions and their usage. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pages 111–120, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[41]

S. Mirghasemi, J. J. Barton, and C. Petitpierre. Querypoint: moving backwards on wrong values in the buggy execution. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering, ESEC/FSE ’11, pages 436–439, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[42]

L. Moreno, J. Aponte, S. Giriprasad, A. Marcus, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Automatic generation of natural language summaries for java classes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’13.

Google Scholar

[43]

G. C. Murphy. Lightweight structural summarization as an aid to software evolution. PhD thesis, University of Washington, July 1996.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[44]

K. Rayner, A. Pollatsek, and E. D. Reichle. Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26:507–518, 7 2003.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[45]

T. Roehm, R. Tiarks, R. Koschke, and W. Maalej. How do professional developers comprehend software? In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2012, pages 255–265.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[46]

B. Sharif. Empirical assessment of uml class diagram layouts based on architectural importance. In Proceedings of the 2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM ’11, pages 544–549, Washington, DC, USA, 2011.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[47]

B. Sharif, M. Falcone, and J. I. Maletic. An eye-tracking study on the role of scan time in finding source code defects. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA ’12, pages 381–384, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[48]

B. Sharif and J. I. Maletic. The effects of layout on detecting the role of design patterns. In Proceedings of the 2010 23rd IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, CSEET ’10, pages 41–48, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[49]

B. Sharif and J. I. Maletic. An eye tracking study on camelcase and under score identifier styles. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’10, pages 196–205, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[50]

J. Sillito, G. C. Murphy, and K. De Volder. Asking and answering questions during a programming change task. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 34(4):434–451.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[51]

S. E. Sim, C. L. A. Clarke, and R. C. Holt. Archetypal source code searches: A survey of software developers and maintainers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, IWPC ’98, pages 180–, Washington, DC, USA, 1998.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[52]

J. Singer, T. Lethbridge, N. Vinson, and N. Anquetil. An examination of software engineering work practices. In Proceedings of the 1997 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, CASCON ’97, pages 21–. IBM Press, 1997.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[53]

M. D. Smucker, J. Allan, and B. Carterette. A comparison of statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation. In CIKM, pages 623–632, 2007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[54]

G. Sridhara. Automatic Generation of Descriptive Summary Comments for Methods in Object-oriented Programs. PhD thesis, University of Delaware, Jan.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

G. Sridhara, E. Hill, D. Muppaneni, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Towards automatically generating summary comments for java methods. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering, ASE ’10, pages 43–52, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[56]

G. Sridhara, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Automatically detecting and describing high level actions within methods. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pages 101–110, New York, NY, USA, 2011.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[57]

G. Sridhara, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Generating parameter comments and integrating with method summaries. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’11, pages 71–80, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[58]

J. Starke, C. Luce, and J. Sillito. Searching and skimming: An exploratory study. In Software Maintenance, 2009. ICSM 2009. IEEE International Conference on, pages 157–166, 2009.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[59]

D. Steidl, B. Hummel, and E. Juergens. Quality analysis of source code comments. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’13, 2013.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[60]

J. Stylos and B. A. Myers. Mica: A web-search tool for finding api components and examples. In Proceedings of the Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VLHCC ’06, pages 195–202, Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[61]

H. Uwano, M. Nakamura, A. Monden, and K.-i. Matsumoto. Analyzing individual performance of source code review using reviewers’ eye movement. In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, ETRA ’’06, pages 133–140, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[62]

D. A. Wolfe and M. Hollander. Nonparametric statistical methods. Nonparametric statistical methods.

Google Scholar

[63]

A. T. T. Ying and M. P. Robillard. Code fragment summarization. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2013, pages 655–658, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[64]

S. Zhang, C. Zhang, and M. D. Ernst. Automated documentation inference to explain failed tests. In Proceedings of the 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’11, pages 63–72, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Huang YHuang JChen XZheng Z(2025)Towards Improving the Performance of Comment Generation Models by Using Bytecode InformationIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.352371351:2(503-520)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2024.3523713
Wang YShi EDu LYang XHu YWang YGuo DHan SZhang HZhang D(2025)Context-aware code summarization with multi-relational graph neural networkAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-025-00490-z32:1Online publication date: 6-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-025-00490-z
Zhang JWang CLi AWang WLi TLiu YFilkov VRay BZhou M(2024)VulAdvisor: Natural Language Suggestion Generation for Software Vulnerability RepairProceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/3691620.3695555(1932-1944)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3691620.3695555
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Improving automated source code summarization via an eye-tracking study of programmers
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Project and people management
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development process management
  2. Software notations and tools
    1. Software configuration management and version control systems

Recommendations

An Eye-Tracking Study of Java Programmers and Application to Source Code Summarization
Source Code Summarization is an emerging technology for automatically generating brief descriptions of code. Current summarization techniques work by selecting a subset of the statements and keywords from the code, and then including information from ...
CODES: mining source code descriptions from developers discussions
ICPC 2014: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Program Comprehension

Program comprehension is a crucial activity, preliminary to any software maintenance task. Such an activity can be difficult when the source code is not adequately documented, or the documentation is outdated. Differently from the many existing ...
Supporting program comprehension with source code summarization
ICSE '10: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2

One of the main challenges faced by today's developers is keeping up with the staggering amount of source code that needs to be read and understood. In order to help developers with this problem and reduce the costs associated with it, one solution is ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Gursimran Singh Walia

Program comprehension is a current and a practical software engineering problem. Software engineers might try to comprehend the code by reading all of the source code-usually a substantial task. This paper highlights the idea of code summation as an alternative to time-consuming and subjective comprehension of the entire program. The focus of the paper is an automated code summation tool applied during the summary building process. An interesting aspect of the authors' contribution is the inclusion of a grounded theory approach (via eye-tracking studies) that provides empirical evidence regarding the kind of keywords the programmers would use to build the summaries. Through eye movement and heat paths, the authors provide new evidence (for example, a method's signature is most critical), contradict previous beliefs regarding programmer behavior (for example, control flow is not as important as it has been suggested in the past), and use the empirical evidence to develop an automated tool for building program summaries the way professional programmers would develop. The automated tool developed by the authors extracts the keywords and the number of times a certain keyword occurs in the code. Then, these keywords are weighed based upon the place in the code (for example, signature or control flow) where the keyword occurs. These weights mirror the way the programmers would have read these keywords and are validated through the eye-tracking study. This work would interest researchers trying to further improve program comprehension and industry professionals who can use the tool (and provide feedback) to improve the source code summarization in their organizations. This work is relevant and generalizable due to the inclusion of behavioral research methods to understand the program behavior during the source code summarization, and then empirically validating the tool (that was subsequently developed) through experimentation with professional software developers. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ICSE 2014: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering

May 2014

1139 pages

ISBN:9781450327565

DOI:10.1145/2568225

General Chair:
Pankaj Jalote
IIIT-Delhi, India
,
Program Chairs:
Lionel Briand
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
,
André van der Hoek
University of California, Irvine, USA

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

In-Cooperation

TCSE: IEEE Computer Society's Tech. Council on Software Engin.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 May 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ICSE '14

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

ICSE '14: 36th International Conference on Software Engineering

May 31 - June 7, 2014

Hyderabad, India

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 276 of 1,856 submissions, 15%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

2025 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

April 26 - May 3, 2025

Ottawa , ON , Canada

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

143
Total Citations
View Citations
1,459
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)78
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Huang YHuang JChen XZheng Z(2025)Towards Improving the Performance of Comment Generation Models by Using Bytecode InformationIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.352371351:2(503-520)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2024.3523713
Wang YShi EDu LYang XHu YWang YGuo DHan SZhang HZhang D(2025)Context-aware code summarization with multi-relational graph neural networkAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-025-00490-z32:1Online publication date: 6-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-025-00490-z
Zhang JWang CLi AWang WLi TLiu YFilkov VRay BZhou M(2024)VulAdvisor: Natural Language Suggestion Generation for Software Vulnerability RepairProceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1145/3691620.3695555(1932-1944)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3691620.3695555
Weber TWiniker CMayer S(2024)An Investigation of How Software Developers Read Machine Learning CodeProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686678(165-176)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674805.3686678
Karas ZBansal AZhang YLi TMcMillan CHuang Y(2024)A Tale of Two Comprehensions? Analyzing Student Programmer Attention during Code SummarizationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/366480833:7(1-37)Online publication date: 26-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664808
Zhang YLi JKaras ZBansal ALi TMcMillan CLeach KHuang Y(2024)EyeTrans: Merging Human and Machine Attention for Neural Code SummarizationProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36437321:FSE(115-136)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643732
Tang NAn JChen MBansal AHuang YMcMillan CLi TRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)CodeGRITS: A Research Toolkit for Developer Behavior and Eye Tracking in IDEProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings10.1145/3639478.3640037(119-123)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639478.3640037
Sun WFang CChen YZhang QTao GYou YHan TGe YHu YLuo BChen Z(2024)An Extractive-and-Abstractive Framework for Source Code SummarizationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363274233:3(1-39)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632742
Zhu TLi ZPan MShi CZhang TPei YLi X(2024)Deep Is Better? An Empirical Comparison of Information Retrieval and Deep Learning Approaches to Code SummarizationACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/363197533:3(1-37)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631975
Ahmed TPai KDevanbu PBarr ERoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639183(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597503.3639183
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

An Eye-Tracking Study of Java Programmers and Application to Source Code Summarization

CODES: mining source code descriptions from developers discussions

Supporting program comprehension with source code summarization

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Conference

Acceptance Rates

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

eReader

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations