Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Analyzing the Performance of Large Language Models on Code Summarization

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.08018 v1 pith:YW7DN6DY submitted 2024-04-10 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.CL
keywords codelanguagemodelslargenamesoverlapperformancesummarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) such as Llama 2 perform very well on tasks that involve both natural language and source code, particularly code summarization and code generation. We show that for the task of code summarization, the performance of these models on individual examples often depends on the amount of (subword) token overlap between the code and the corresponding reference natural language descriptions in the dataset. This token overlap arises because the reference descriptions in standard datasets (corresponding to docstrings in large code bases) are often highly similar to the names of the functions they describe. We also show that this token overlap occurs largely in the function names of the code and compare the relative performance of these models after removing function names versus removing code structure. We also show that using multiple evaluation metrics like BLEU and BERTScore gives us very little additional insight since these metrics are highly correlated with each other.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Language Models for Fault Localization: An Empirical Study

    cs.SE 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An empirical study of four LLMs for statement-level Java fault localization finds Gemini-2.5-Flash most accurate, bug-report context strongly helpful, and few-shot/CoT gains inconsistent.

Pith tools