Calibration of Large Language Models on Code Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19318v3
• Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:55:33 GMT
• Title: Calibration of Large Language Models on Code Summarization
• Authors: Yuvraj Virk, Premkumar Devanbu, Toufique Ahmed,
• Abstract summary: We study how closely AI-generated summaries resemble a summary a human might have produced.<n>Measures such as BERTScore and BLEU have been suggested and evaluated with human-subject studies.
• Score: 4.4378250612684
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A brief, fluent, and relevant summary can be helpful during program comprehension; however, such a summary does require significant human effort to produce. Often, good summaries are unavailable in software projects, which makes maintenance more difficult. There has been a considerable body of research into automated AI-based methods, using Large Language models (LLMs), to generate summaries of code; there also has been quite a bit of work on ways to measure the performance of such summarization methods, with special attention paid to how closely these AI-generated summaries resemble a summary a human might have produced. Measures such as BERTScore and BLEU have been suggested and evaluated with human-subject studies. However, LLM-generated summaries can be inaccurate, incomplete, etc.: generally, too dissimilar to one that a good developer might write. Given an LLM-generated code summary, how can a user rationally judge if a summary is sufficiently good and reliable? Given just some input source code, and an LLM-generated summary, existing approaches can help judge brevity, fluency and relevance of the summary; however, it's difficult to gauge whether an LLM-generated summary sufficiently resembles what a human might produce, without a "golden" human-produced summary to compare against. We study this resemblance question as calibration problem: given just the code & the summary from an LLM, can we compute a confidence measure, that provides a reliable indication of whether the summary sufficiently resembles what a human would have produced in this situation? We examine this question using several LLMs, for several languages, and in several different settings. Our investigation suggests approaches to provide reliable predictions of the likelihood that an LLM-generated summary would sufficiently resemble a summary a human might write for the same code.

Related papers

• On the Effectiveness of LLM-as-a-judge for Code Generation and Summarization [54.965787768076254]
  Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A.<n>We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T13:40:26Z)
• Can Large Language Models Serve as Evaluators for Code Summarization? [47.21347974031545]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) serve as effective evaluators for code summarization methods. LLMs prompt an agent to play diverse roles, such as code reviewer, code author, code editor, and system analyst. CODERPE achieves an 81.59% Spearman correlation with human evaluations, outperforming the existing BERTScore metric by 17.27%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T09:56:18Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts? [24.563167762241346]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently started to demonstrate human-level performance in several areas. This paper explores the possibility of substituting costly human subjects with much cheaper LLM queries in evaluations of code and code-related artifacts. Our results show that replacing some human annotation effort with LLMs can produce inter-rater agreements equal or close to human-rater agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T12:30:01Z)
• Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models [23.715005053430957]
  Large language models (LLMs) have 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T05:48:42Z)
• Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) produce inaccurate outputs, also known as hallucinations. This paper introduces a supervised learning approach employing only four numerical features derived from tokens and vocabulary probabilities obtained from other evaluators. The method yields promising results, surpassing state-of-the-art outcomes in multiple tasks across three different benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T03:00:47Z)
• AugSumm: towards generalizable speech summarization using synthetic labels from large language model [61.73741195292997]
  Abstractive speech summarization (SSUM) aims to generate human-like summaries from speech. conventional SSUM models are mostly trained and evaluated with a single ground-truth (GT) human-annotated deterministic summary. We propose AugSumm, a method to leverage large language models (LLMs) as a proxy for human annotators to generate augmented summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T18:39:46Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• LLM-in-the-loop: Leveraging Large Language Model for Thematic Analysis [18.775126929754833]
  Thematic analysis (TA) has been widely used for analyzing qualitative data in many disciplines and fields. Human coders develop and deepen their data interpretation and coding over multiple iterations, making TA labor-intensive and time-consuming. We propose a human-LLM collaboration framework (i.e., LLM-in-the-loop) to conduct TA with in-context learning (ICL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:05:59Z)
• Large Language Model-Aware In-Context Learning for Code Generation [75.68709482932903]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive in-context learning (ICL) ability in code generation. We propose a novel learning-based selection approach named LAIL (LLM-Aware In-context Learning) for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T06:12:58Z)
• BooookScore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLMs [53.42917858142565]
  We develop an automatic metric, BooookScore, that measures the proportion of sentences in a summary that do not contain any of the identified error types. We find that closed-source LLMs such as GPT-4 and 2 produce summaries with higher BooookScore than those generated by open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T20:46:44Z)
• Summarization is (Almost) Dead [49.360752383801305]
  We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of large language models (LLMs) Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:13:01Z)
• Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Tasks [12.723777984461693]
  Large language models (LLMs) are remarkable data annotators. Crowdsourcing, an important, inexpensive way to obtain human annotations, may itself be impacted by LLMs. We estimate that 33-46% of crowd workers used LLMs when completing a task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T16:46:24Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.