CommitBench: A Benchmark for Commit Message Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05188v1
• Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 09:56:45 GMT
• Title: CommitBench: A Benchmark for Commit Message Generation
• Authors: Maximilian Schall, Tamara Czinczoll, Gerard de Melo
• Abstract summary: We show that existing datasets exhibit various problems, such as the quality of the commit selection. We compile a new large-scale dataset, CommitBench, adopting best practices for dataset creation. We use CommitBench to compare existing models and show that other approaches are outperformed by a Transformer model pretrained on source code.
• Score: 22.03783968903916
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Writing commit messages is a tedious daily task for many software developers, and often remains neglected. Automating this task has the potential to save time while ensuring that messages are informative. A high-quality dataset and an objective benchmark are vital preconditions for solid research and evaluation towards this goal. We show that existing datasets exhibit various problems, such as the quality of the commit selection, small sample sizes, duplicates, privacy issues, and missing licenses for redistribution. This can lead to unusable models and skewed evaluations, where inferior models achieve higher evaluation scores due to biases in the data. We compile a new large-scale dataset, CommitBench, adopting best practices for dataset creation. We sample commits from diverse projects with licenses that permit redistribution and apply our filtering and dataset enhancements to improve the quality of generated commit messages. We use CommitBench to compare existing models and show that other approaches are outperformed by a Transformer model pretrained on source code. We hope to accelerate future research by publishing the source code( https://github.com/Maxscha/commitbench ).

Related papers

• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• Multi-Candidate Speculative Decoding [82.05519287513444]
  Large language models have shown impressive capabilities across a variety of NLP tasks, yet their generating text autoregressively is time-consuming. One way to speed them up is speculative decoding, which generates candidate segments from a fast draft model that is then verified in parallel by the target model. This paper proposes sampling multiple candidates from a draft model and then organising them in batches for verification. We design algorithms for efficient multi-candidate verification while maintaining the distribution of the target model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T17:15:23Z)
• Boosting Commit Classification with Contrastive Learning [0.8655526882770742]
  Commit Classification (CC) is an important task in software maintenance. We propose a contrastive learning-based commit classification framework. Our framework can solve the CC problem simply but effectively in fewshot scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-16T10:02:36Z)
• Delving into Commit-Issue Correlation to Enhance Commit Message Generation Models [13.605167159285374]
  Commit message generation is a challenging task in automated software engineering. tool is a novel paradigm that can introduce the correlation between commits and issues into the training phase of models. The results show that compared with the original models, the performance of tool-enhanced models is significantly improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T20:35:00Z)
• WeCheck: Strong Factual Consistency Checker via Weakly Supervised Learning [40.5830891229718]
  We propose a weakly supervised framework that aggregates multiple resources to train a precise and efficient factual metric, namely WeCheck. Comprehensive experiments on a variety of tasks demonstrate the strong performance of WeCheck, which achieves a 3.4% absolute improvement over previous state-of-the-art methods on TRUE benchmark on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T08:04:36Z)
• A Closer Look at Debiased Temporal Sentence Grounding in Videos: Dataset, Metric, and Approach [53.727460222955266]
  Temporal Sentence Grounding in Videos (TSGV) aims to ground a natural language sentence in an untrimmed video. Recent studies have found that current benchmark datasets may have obvious moment annotation biases. We introduce a new evaluation metric "dR@n,IoU@m" that discounts the basic recall scores to alleviate the inflating evaluation caused by biased datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-10T08:58:18Z)
• On the Evaluation of Commit Message Generation Models: An Experimental Study [33.19314967188712]
  Commit messages are natural language descriptions of code changes, which are important for program understanding and maintenance. Various approaches utilizing generation or retrieval techniques have been proposed to automatically generate commit messages. This paper conducts a systematic and in-depth analysis of the state-of-the-art models and datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T12:38:02Z)
• Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory [53.755064720563]
  We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:33:53Z)
• Hidden Biases in Unreliable News Detection Datasets [60.71991809782698]
  We show that selection bias during data collection leads to undesired artifacts in the datasets. We observed a significant drop (>10%) in accuracy for all models tested in a clean split with no train/test source overlap. We suggest future dataset creation include a simple model as a difficulty/bias probe and future model development use a clean non-overlapping site and date split.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-20T17:16:41Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.