Suggesting accurate method and class names

ABSTRACT

Descriptive names are a vital part of readable, and hence maintainable, code. Recent progress on automatically suggesting names for local variables tantalizes with the prospect of replicating that success with method and class names. However, suggesting names for methods and classes is much more difficult. This is because good method and class names need to be functionally descriptive, but suggesting such names requires that the model goes beyond local context. We introduce a neural probabilistic language model for source code that is specifically designed for the method naming problem. Our model learns which names are semantically similar by assigning them to locations, called embeddings, in a high-dimensional continuous space, in such a way that names with similar embeddings tend to be used in similar contexts. These embeddings seem to contain semantic information about tokens, even though they are learned only from statistical co-occurrences of tokens. Furthermore, we introduce a variant of our model that is, to our knowledge, the first that can propose neologisms, names that have not appeared in the training corpus. We obtain state of the art results on the method, class, and even the simpler variable naming tasks. More broadly, the continuous embeddings that are learned by our model have the potential for wide application within software engineering.

References

1. S. L. Abebe, V. Arnaoudova, P. Tonella, G. Antoniol, and Y. Gueheneuc. Can lexicon bad smells improve fault prediction? In WCRE, 2012.
2. M. Allamanis, E. T. Barr, C. Bird, and C. Sutton. Learning natural coding conventions. In FSE, 2014.
3. M. Allamanis and C. Sutton. Mining source code repositories at massive scale using language modeling. In MSR. IEEE Press, 2013.
4. M. Allamanis and C. Sutton. Mining Idioms from Source Code. In FSE, 2014.
5. V. Arnaoudova, M. Di Penta, G. Antoniol, and Y.-G. Gueheneuc. A new family of software anti-patterns: Linguistic anti-patterns. In CSMR, 2013.
6. V. Arnaoudova, L. M. Eshkevari, M. D. Penta, R. Oliveto, G. Antoniol, and Y. Guéhéneuc. REPENT: analyzing the nature of identifier renamings. IEEE TSE, 2014.
7. V. Arnaoudova, M. D. Penta, and G. Antoniol. Linguistic antipatterns: What they are and how developers perceive them. EMSE, 2015.
8. M. Banko, V. Mittal, and M. Witbrock. Headline generation based on statistical translation. In ACL, 2000.
9. K. Beck. Implementation patterns. Pearson Education, 2007.
10. Y. Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent, and C. Janvin. A neural probabilistic language model. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003.
11. D. Binkley, M. Hearn, and D. Lawrie. Improving identifier informativeness using part of speech information. In MSR, 2011.
12. J. Botha and P. Blunsom. Compositional morphology for word representations and language modelling. In ICML, 2014.
13. S. Butler, M. Wermelinger, Y. Yu, and H. Sharp. Relating identifier naming flaws and code quality: An empirical study. In WCRE, 2009.
14. S. Butler, M. Wermelinger, Y. Yu, and H. Sharp. Exploring the influence of identifier names on code quality: An empirical study. In 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR’2010, pages 156–165, 2010.
15. S. Butler, M. Wermelinger, Y. Yu, and H. Sharp. Mining Java class naming conventions. In ICSM, 2011.
16. S. Chen and J. Goodman. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. In ACL, 1996.
17. T. A. Corbi. Program understanding: Challenge for the 1990s. IBM Systems Journal, 28(2):294–306, 1989.
18. A. De Lucia, M. Di Penta, R. Oliveto, A. Panichella, and S. Panichella. Using IR methods for labeling source code artifacts: Is it worthwhile? In ICPC, 2012.
19. B. Dorr, D. Zajic, and R. Schwartz. Hedge trimmer: A parse-and-trim approach to headline generation. In HLT-NAACL-03, 2003.
20. B. P. Eddy, J. A. Robinson, N. A. Kraft, and J. C. Carver. Evaluating source code summarization techniques: Replication and expansion. In ICPC, 2013.
21. M. U. Gutmann and A. Hyvärinen. Noise-contrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2012.
22. S. Haiduc, J. Aponte, and A. Marcus. Supporting program comprehension with source code summarization. In ICSE, 2010.
23. S. Haiduc, J. Aponte, L. Moreno, and A. Marcus. On the use of automated text summarization techniques for summarizing source code. In WCRE, 2010.
24. D. Hendrix, J. Cross, S. Maghsoodloo, et al. The effectiveness of control structure diagrams in source code comprehension activities. IEEE TSE, 2002.
25. A. Hindle, E. T. Barr, Z. Su, M. Gabel, and P. Devanbu. On the naturalness of software. In ICSE, 2012.
26. E. W. Høst and B. M. Østvold. Debugging method names. In ECOOP, 2009.
27. S. Karaivanov, V. Raychev, and M. T. Vechev. Phrase-based statistical translation of programming languages. In Onward!, 2014.
28. R. Kiros, R. Zemel, and R. Salakhutdinov. Multimodal neural language models. In NIPS, 2013.
29. D. Lawrie, C. Morrell, H. Feild, and D. Binkley. What’s in a name? a study of identifiers. In ICPC, 2006.
30. B. Liblit, A. Begel, and E. Sweetser. Cognitive perspectives on the role of naming in computer programs. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Psychology of Programming Workshop, 2006.
31. C. J. Maddison and D. Tarlow. Structured generative models of natural source code. In ICML, 2014.
32. C. D. Manning, P. Raghavan, and H. Schütze. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
33. R. C. Martin. Clean code: a handbook of agile software craftsmanship. Pearson Education, 2008.
34. S. McConnell. Code Complete. Microsoft Press, 2004.
35. T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In ICLR Workshop, 2013.
36. T. Mikolov, W.-t. Yih, and G. Zweig. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In HLT-NAACL, 2013.
37. A. Mnih and G. Hinton. Three new graphical models for statistical language modelling. In ICML, 2007.
38. A. Mnih and K. Kavukcuoglu. Learning word embeddings efficiently with noise-contrastive estimation. In NIPS, 2013.
39. A. Mnih and Y. W. Teh. A fast and simple algorithm for training neural probabilistic language models. In ICML, 2012.
40. L. Mou, G. Li, Z. Jin, L. Zhang, and T. Wang. TBCNN: a tree-based convolutional neural network for programming language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.5718, 2014.
41. T. T. Nguyen, A. T. Nguyen, H. A. Nguyen, and T. N. Nguyen. A statistical semantic language model for source code. In FSE, 2013.
42. J. Pennington, R. Socher, and C. D. Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. EMNLP, 2014.
43. V. Raychev, M. Vechev, and A. Krause. Predicting program properties from “big code”. In POPL, 2015.
44. S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.
45. G. Sridhara. Automatic generation of descriptive summary comments for methods in object-oriented programs. University of Delaware, 2012.
46. G. Sridhara, E. Hill, D. Muppaneni, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Towards automatically generating summary comments for java methods. In ASE, 2010.
47. G. Sridhara, L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. Automatically detecting and describing high level actions within methods. In ICSE, 2011.
48. N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2014.
49. A. Takang, P. Grubb, and R. Macredie. The effects of comments and identifier names on program comprehensibility: an experiential study. Journal of Program Languages, 4(3):143–167, 1996.
50. A. A. Takang, P. A. Grubb, and R. D. Macredie. The effects of comments and identifier names on program comprehensibility: an experimental investigation. J. Prog. Lang., 4(3):143–167, 1996.
51. L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2008.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools