Investigating the Impact of Code Comment Inconsistency on Bug Introducing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10781v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 23:24:29 GMT
• Title: Investigating the Impact of Code Comment Inconsistency on Bug Introducing
• Authors: Shiva Radmanesh, Aaron Imani, Iftekhar Ahmed, Mohammad Moshirpour,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the impact of code-comment inconsistency on bug introduction using large language models. We first compare the performance of the GPT-3.5 model with other state-of-the-art methods in detecting these inconsistencies. We also analyze the temporal evolution of code-comment inconsistencies and their effect on bug proneness over various timeframes.
• Score: 4.027975836739619
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Code comments are essential for clarifying code functionality, improving readability, and facilitating collaboration among developers. Despite their importance, comments often become outdated, leading to inconsistencies with the corresponding code. This can mislead developers and potentially introduce bugs. Our research investigates the impact of code-comment inconsistency on bug introduction using large language models, specifically GPT-3.5. We first compare the performance of the GPT-3.5 model with other state-of-the-art methods in detecting these inconsistencies, demonstrating the superiority of GPT-3.5 in this domain. Additionally, we analyze the temporal evolution of code-comment inconsistencies and their effect on bug proneness over various timeframes using GPT-3.5 and Odds ratio analysis. Our findings reveal that inconsistent changes are around 1.5 times more likely to lead to a bug-introducing commit than consistent changes, highlighting the necessity of maintaining consistent and up-to-date comments in software development. This study provides new insights into the relationship between code-comment inconsistency and software quality, offering a comprehensive analysis of its impact over time, demonstrating that the impact of code-comment inconsistency on bug introduction is highest immediately after the inconsistency is introduced and diminishes over time.

Related papers

• Prompting and Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Automated Code Review Comment Generation [5.6001617185032595]
  Large language models pretrained on both programming and natural language data tend to perform well in code-oriented tasks. We fine-tune open-source Large language models (LLM) in parameter-efficient, quantized low-rank fashion on consumer-grade hardware to improve review comment generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:01:38Z)
• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Assessing Consensus of Developers' Views on Code Readability [3.798885293742468]
  Developers now spend more time reviewing code than writing it, highlighting the importance of Code Readability for code comprehension. Previous research found that existing Code Readability models were inaccurate in representing developers' notions. We surveyed 10 Java developers with similar coding experience to evaluate their consensus on Code Readability assessments and related aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T09:54:42Z)
• Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones? [65.43882564649721]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues. We develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. We analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:25:47Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)
• Generic Temporal Reasoning with Differential Analysis and Explanation [61.96034987217583]
  We introduce a novel task named TODAY that bridges the gap with temporal differential analysis. TODAY evaluates whether systems can correctly understand the effect of incremental changes. We show that TODAY's supervision style and explanation annotations can be used in joint learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T17:40:03Z)
• Using Developer Discussions to Guide Fixing Bugs in Software [51.00904399653609]
  We propose using bug report discussions, which are available before the task is performed and are also naturally occurring, avoiding the need for additional information from developers. We demonstrate that various forms of natural language context derived from such discussions can aid bug-fixing, even leading to improved performance over using commit messages corresponding to the oracle bug-fixing commits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T16:37:33Z)
• Code Comment Inconsistency Detection with BERT and Longformer [9.378041196272878]
  Comments, or natural language descriptions of source code, are standard practice among software developers. When the code is modified without an accompanying correction to the comment, an inconsistency between the comment and code can arise. We propose two models to detect such inconsistencies in a natural language inference (NLI) context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-29T02:43:51Z)
• Predicting Code Review Completion Time in Modern Code Review [12.696276129130332]
  Modern Code Review (MCR) is being adopted in both open source and commercial projects as a common practice. Code reviews can experience significant delays to be completed due to various socio-technical factors. There is a lack of tool support to help developers estimating the time required to complete a code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T14:00:56Z)
• Deep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source Code [51.00904399653609]
  In this paper, we aim to detect whether a comment becomes inconsistent as a result of changes to the corresponding body of code. We develop a deep-learning approach that learns to correlate a comment with code changes. We show the usefulness of our approach by combining it with a comment update model to build a more comprehensive automatic comment maintenance system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T16:49:28Z)

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.