Providing Information About Implemented Algorithms Improves Program Comprehension: A Controlled Experiment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19225v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:08:30 GMT
• Title: Providing Information About Implemented Algorithms Improves Program Comprehension: A Controlled Experiment
• Authors: Denis Neumüller, Alexander Raschke, Matthias Tichy,
• Abstract summary: Annotating source code with algorithm labels significantly improves program comprehension.<n>A majority of participants perceived the labels as helpful, especially for recognizing the codes intent.<n> Reasons for self-implementing algorithms included library inadequacies, performance needs and avoiding dependencies or licensing costs.
• Score: 46.198289193451146
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Context: Various approaches aim to support program comprehension by automatically detecting algorithms in source code. However, no empirical evaluations of their helpfulness have been performed. Objective: To empirically evaluate how algorithm labels - which include the algorithm's name and additional information - impact program comprehension in terms of correctness and time. Method: We conducted a controlled experiment with 56 participants, where the experimental group received code with labeled algorithms. The groups completed exercises designed to measure program comprehension as well as a post-questionnaire on label helpfulness, use cases for algorithm recognition, and reasons for self-implementation of algorithms in practice. Results: Annotating source code with algorithm labels significantly improves program comprehension (p=0.040), with a median improvement of 6 points (~23%), but does not affect completion times (p=0.991). Qualitative analysis revealed that a majority of participants perceived the labels as helpful, especially for recognizing the codes intent. Participants also proposed use cases such as error detection, optimization, and library replacement. Reasons for self-implementing algorithms included library inadequacies, performance needs and avoiding dependencies or licensing costs. Conclusion: This study shows that algorithm labels improve program comprehension, especially for developers with medium programming experience. Our qualitative analysis also sheds light on how participants benefit from the labels, further use cases for algorithm recognition and motivations behind self-implementing algorithms.

Related papers

• Large Language Model-Enhanced Algorithm Selection: Towards Comprehensive Algorithm Representation [27.378185644892984]
  This paper introduces Large Language Models (LLMs) into algorithm selection for the first time. LLMs not only captures the structural and semantic aspects of the algorithm, but also demonstrates contextual awareness and library function understanding. The selected algorithm is determined by the matching degree between a given problem and different algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T06:23:18Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Ability Diagnosis for Machine Learning Algorithms [88.93372675846123]
  We propose a task-agnostic evaluation framework Camilla for evaluating machine learning algorithms. We use cognitive diagnosis assumptions and neural networks to learn the complex interactions among algorithms, samples and the skills of each sample. In our experiments, Camilla outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the metric reliability, rank consistency and rank stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T03:15:56Z)
• A Gold Standard Dataset for the Reviewer Assignment Problem [117.59690218507565]
  "Similarity score" is a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers. For the task of ordering two papers in terms of their relevance for a reviewer, the error rates range from 12%-30% in easy cases to 36%-43% in hard cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:15:03Z)
• Towards Diverse Evaluation of Class Incremental Learning: A Representation Learning Perspective [67.45111837188685]
  Class incremental learning (CIL) algorithms aim to continually learn new object classes from incrementally arriving data. We experimentally analyze neural network models trained by CIL algorithms using various evaluation protocols in representation learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T11:44:11Z)
• How to transfer algorithmic reasoning knowledge to learn new algorithms? [23.335939830754747]
  We investigate how we can use algorithms for which we have access to the execution trace to learn to solve similar tasks for which we do not. We create a dataset including 9 algorithms and 3 different graph types. We validate this empirically and show how instead multi-task learning can be used to achieve the transfer of algorithmic reasoning knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T22:14:47Z)
• Machine Learning for Online Algorithm Selection under Censored Feedback [71.6879432974126]
  In online algorithm selection (OAS), instances of an algorithmic problem class are presented to an agent one after another, and the agent has to quickly select a presumably best algorithm from a fixed set of candidate algorithms. For decision problems such as satisfiability (SAT), quality typically refers to the algorithm's runtime. In this work, we revisit multi-armed bandit algorithms for OAS and discuss their capability of dealing with the problem. We adapt them towards runtime-oriented losses, allowing for partially censored data while keeping a space- and time-complexity independent of the time horizon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T18:10:52Z)
• Identifying Co-Adaptation of Algorithmic and Implementational Innovations in Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Taxonomy and Case Study of Inference-based Algorithms [15.338931971492288]
  We focus on a series of inference-based actor-critic algorithms to decouple their algorithmic innovations and implementation decisions. We identify substantial performance drops whenever implementation details are mismatched for algorithmic choices. Results show which implementation details are co-adapted and co-evolved with algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T17:55:20Z)
• Benchmarking Simulation-Based Inference [5.3898004059026325]
  Recent advances in probabilistic modelling have led to a large number of simulation-based inference algorithms which do not require numerical evaluation of likelihoods. We provide a benchmark with inference tasks and suitable performance metrics, with an initial selection of algorithms. We found that the choice of performance metric is critical, that even state-of-the-art algorithms have substantial room for improvement, and that sequential estimation improves sample efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-12T18:31:22Z)
• Learning to Actively Learn: A Robust Approach [14.46867518436922]
  This work proposes a procedure for designing algorithms for adaptive data collection tasks like active learning and pure-exploration multi-armed bandits.<n>Our adaptive algorithm is learned via adversarial training over equivalence classes of problems derived from information theoretic lower bounds.<n>We perform synthetic experiments to justify the stability and effectiveness of the training procedure, and then evaluate the method on tasks derived from real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-29T06:48:22Z)
• Run2Survive: A Decision-theoretic Approach to Algorithm Selection based on Survival Analysis [75.64261155172856]
  survival analysis (SA) naturally supports censored data and offers appropriate ways to use such data for learning distributional models of algorithm runtime. We leverage such models as a basis of a sophisticated decision-theoretic approach to algorithm selection, which we dub Run2Survive. In an extensive experimental study with the standard benchmark ASlib, our approach is shown to be highly competitive and in many cases even superior to state-of-the-art AS approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-06T15:20:17Z)

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.