A methodology for refined evaluation of neural code completion approaches

Abstract

Code completion has become an indispensable feature of modern Integrated Development Environments. In recent years, many approaches have been proposed to tackle this task. However, it is hard to compare between the models without explicitly re-evaluating them due to the differences of used benchmarks (e.g. datasets and evaluation metrics). Besides, almost all of these works report the accuracy of the code completion models as aggregated metrics averaged over all types of code tokens. Such evaluations make it difficult to assess the potential improvements for particularly relevant types of tokens (i.e. method or variable names), and blur the differences between the performance of the methods. In this paper, we propose a methodology called Code Token Type Taxonomy (CT3) to address the issue of using aggregated metrics. We identify multiple dimensions relevant for code prediction (e.g. syntax type, context, length), partition the tokens into meaningful types along each dimension, and compute individual accuracies by type. We illustrate the utility of this methodology by comparing the code completion accuracy of a Transformer-based model in two variants: with closed, and with open vocabulary. Our results show that the refined evaluation provides a more detailed view of the differences and indicates where further work is needed. We also survey the state-of-the-art of Machine Learning-based code completion models to illustrate that there is a demand for a set of standardized benchmarks for code completion approaches. Furthermore, we find that the open vocabulary model is significantly more accurate for relevant code token types such as usage of (defined) variables and literals.

Rethinking AI Code Generation: A One-shot Correction Approach Based on User Feedback

“…(lines 2-4). We use tree-sitter 19 and Code Token Type Taxonomy (CT3) proposed by Le et al (2023) to analyze token types of each token within the sub-snippets. Identifier definitions encompass variable definitions, argument definitions, and imported libraries, while identifier usages include the utilization of all the specified definitions.…”

“…Furthermore, to prefer specific token types, users can simply enable/disable the corresponding flag of the token type (Listing 3, line 11). These types are determined based on a study of Le et al (2023).…”