Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SECRET: Towards Scalable and Efficient Code Retrieval via Segmented Deep Hashing

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SECRET claims that code-candidate recall for deep hashing-based code retrieval can be replaced by hash-table lookups over short hash-code segments, cutting recall time by at least 95% while preserving nearly all retrieval accuracy.

desk verdict SECRET is a sensible segmented-hashing wrapper for deep code retrieval, but the headline 'at least 95% faster' leans on a linear-scan baseline whose implementation is too thinly documented to fully trust. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11728 v1 pith:GYXYZ3H5 submitted 2024-12-16 cs.SE

Wenchao Gu , Ensheng Shi , Yanlin Wang , Lun Du , Shi Han , Hongyu Zhang , Dongmei Zhang , Michael R. Lyu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords coderetrievaldeephashingsegmentedhashtablelookupsearchaccelerationiterativetrainingadaptivebitrelaxing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SECRET is an acceleration layer for deep hashing-based code retrieval. It takes the long binary hash codes produced by existing deep hashing models, splits them into short segments, and builds one hash table per segment; at query time it recalls candidates by table lookups instead of scanning the entire code database and computing Hamming distances. The paper claims this reduces recall time by at least 95% at database sizes from 50,000 to 400,000 snippets while retaining at least 97% of retrieval performance, and that it outperforms the classical hash-table baseline LSH under the same number of hash tables. To make the hash tables effective, SECRET trains the code and query hashing models iteratively so their segment outputs align, relaxes hard-to-align bits to an unknown state, and adjusts training objectives to avoid hash collisions with negative samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the segmented hash code: a long binary hash code split into short chunks, each of which becomes a key in its own lookup table. A query recalls a code snippet if any of the query's segment keys collides with the snippet's corresponding segment key, so recall cost shifts from an $O(n)$ Hamming scan to $O(1)$-style table lookups followed by counting and sorting the hit candidates. The training machinery that makes collisions meaningful is the iterative alignment loop: freeze one modality's hashing model, use its segment outputs as targets for the other, then alternate; adaptive bit relaxing replaces low-magnitude output bits with an unknown state so hard-to-align bits do not force mismatches; and dynamic matching objective adjustment edits the target labels to steer away from hash values that collide with negative samples in the batch.

What would settle it

Measure SECRET's wall-clock recall time as the code database grows from 400,000 to several million snippets at fixed segment length and candidate budget; if time scales linearly with database size or with the number of hash collisions per segment, the claimed lookup advantage is not realized at the scale the paper targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that candidate recall for deep-hashing code retrieval can be transformed from a linear Hamming-distance scan of the whole code database into a set of hash-table lookups over segmented hash codes, with no material loss in accuracy. SECRET splits each long hash code into short segments (16 bits in the experiments), builds a lookup table per segment, and retrieves any code snippet whose segment collides with the query's corresponding segment. The iterative training stage alternately freezes one modality's hashing model and uses its output as the training objective for the other, while adaptive bit relaxing marks low-confidence bits as unknown and dynamic matching objective adjustment shifts alignment targets away from negative samples' hash values. On CodeSearchNet-derived Python and Java benchmarks with 128- and 256-bit codes, SECRET reports at least 95% recall-time reduction across all tested database sizes and hash lengths, retains roughly 97-98% of the original deep hashing performance, and matches or beats the base methods on several 256-bit settings.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the sublinear recall-time speedups measured on databases of up to 400,000 snippets will continue to hold on the tens-of-millions-scale code databases that motivate the work, an extrapolation the paper itself flags as untested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 95%+ recall-time reduction holds at scale, deep hashing code retrieval can serve interactive code search on very large repositories without re-ranking against the entire database.
  • Because longer hash codes improve SECRET's recall (more segments, more tables), performance lost through segmentation can be recovered by increasing code length at modest storage cost.
  • SECRET's candidate set is smaller than a full-scan recall set, so the re-rank stage does less work, implying end-to-end latency gains beyond the recall step.
  • The framework is portable: it wraps the output of any deep hashing model, so future improvements in deep hashing encoders should inherit the same speedup without redesign.
  • The sublinear growth of SECRET's recall time as database size grows suggests the efficiency advantage widens as the code database expands.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 95% figure degrades when hash tables fill with collisions, the method's practical ceiling may be reached well below GitHub-scale corpora; a direct measurement of candidate-list growth versus database size would make this precise.
  • The adaptive bit relaxing strategy effectively turns binary codes into ternary codes inside the table, so the framework could connect to ternary hashing literature and to learned approximate nearest neighbor indexes that tolerate wildcard bits.
  • A testable extension would be to apply SECRET to retrieval-augmented code generation or very large monorepo search, where recall latency is often the bottleneck and the re-ranking model is itself expensive.
  • The paper does not report end-to-end latency including the encoding step; the 95% figure covers only the recall step, so a full-system study could change the practical speedup picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SECRET, a framework that accelerates deep-hashing code retrieval by splitting long binary hash codes into short segments, training code and query hashing models to align those segments (via iterative training, adaptive bit relaxing, and dynamic matching objective adjustment), and then recalling candidates through hash-table lookups instead of full linear scans. Experiments on CodeSearchNet Python and Java with CodeBERT/GraphCodeBERT and four deep hashing baselines report that SECRET reduces recall time by at least 95% while largely retaining retrieval accuracy, and that it outperforms LSH under the same number of hash tables. The proposed mechanism is plausible and the ablation study is informative, but the central efficiency claim rests on a baseline implementation whose fairness is not established, and several quantitative statements in the text exceed what the reported tables support.

Significance. If the efficiency claim survives scrutiny, SECRET would be a practically useful and inexpensive acceleration layer for existing deep hashing code retrievers, and the training strategies (iterative alignment, bit relaxing) are interesting beyond the specific application. The paper's strengths are the breadth of the comparison (two languages, two retrieval encoders, four deep hashing baselines, multiple database sizes) and the explicit ablation of the two main design components. The main limitation is that the paper's headline result is an empirical efficiency measurement, and the manuscript currently does not provide enough implementation detail or variance information to verify it; no code is released. The central contribution is therefore promising but not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-E and Table II] The reported linear-scan baselines appear unoptimized in a way that directly affects the headline 'at least 95%' claim. At N=400,000 and 128-bit codes, the database is 6.4 MB; CoSHC's 280.1 s over 10,000 queries corresponds to 28 ms per query, i.e., roughly 229 MB/s of memory read. A single-thread XOR-plus-popcount scan over data that fits in the L3 cache of the stated Xeon E5-2698v4 should achieve multiple GB/s, so the speedup over a fair baseline is likely much smaller than the reported 36x. The paper does not state whether popcount/SIMD is used in the baseline, and no code is released. Please report the exact baseline loop, compiler and flags, and re-measure against a tightly optimized linear scan; this is a prerequisite for the central efficiency claim.
  2. [Section IV-B and Table III] The text says SECRET 'retains more than 98%' of performance, but the table's worst relative results are around 96.7%: for example, GraphCodeBERT/DJSRH-SECRET on Python at 128 bits has N@10 = 0.619 versus 0.640 for the baseline, and several other cells are in the 96.7-97.2% range. Please replace the blanket 98% statement with the actual range and rephrase the conclusion so that it matches the data.
  3. [Tables II and III] All efficiency and effectiveness results are single-run and reported without variance. The effectiveness differences of 0.2-0.4 percentage points that are described as 'outperform' or 'comparable' may be within run-to-run noise. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds (or at least confidence intervals) for the main performance comparisons, and clarify whether the timing numbers are medians over repeated runs.
  4. [Section VII and Abstract] The abstract's unqualified 'at least 95%' reduction and the motivation built on GitHub-scale repositories (45M repositories) are not supported by the tested database sizes (50k-400k), and Section VII explicitly concedes that the data size 'may not be sufficient to demonstrate the performance and efficiency of SECRET under huge databases.' Since lookup cost and candidate-set sorting grow with collision counts, the measured reduction may not extrapolate. Please either add experiments at larger scale or restrict the abstract and conclusions to the tested regime and discuss the scaling behavior of the candidate-set sorting.
  5. [Section II-A and Section IV-A] The paper repeatedly states that SECRET reduces recall time complexity from O(n) to O(1), but Section IV-A later acknowledges that the recall step also counts candidate appearances and sorts the candidate set, with worst-case complexity O(n log n) in the number of snippets. The overview and abstract therefore give an overly strong complexity claim. Please state the actual complexity as lookup plus candidate counting/sorting and describe how it depends on the collision distribution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-A] The cross-references are inconsistent: the text refers to 'Table III-D' and 'Table IV-A' where the displayed tables are Table II and Table III. Please fix all table references.
  2. [Section IV-B] The text refers to 'DASH' when discussing the performance of DSAH; please correct the acronym.
  3. [Section VII] The threats section says only 'three deep hashing baselines' were selected, but four are actually evaluated (CoSHC, DJSRH, DSAH, and JDSH).
  4. [Equation (4)] The symbol k is reused for the segment length in Eq. (2) and for the number of relaxed bits in Eq. (4). Using a distinct symbol (e.g., r) for the relaxation budget would prevent confusion.
  5. [Equation (9)] The sentence 'Since the value range of o_ij is [1, +1]' should presumably read [-1, +1]. Please correct this typo.
  6. [Section V-B] The storage-cost statement that three relaxed bits make hash segments '2^3 times higher' assumes that each relaxed bit is expanded to both values; please state this assumption explicitly, as the sentence is otherwise easy to misread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the 95% recall-time reduction is an empirical timing comparison; the only self-citation (CoSHC) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical efficiency comparison: SECRET replaces the linear Hamming scan of deep-hashing recall with per-segment hash-table lookups. Table II reports measured wall-clock times for SECRET and for four deep hashing baselines (including the authors' prior CoSHC) across 50k-400k databases, and the over-95% reduction is a direct ratio of those timings; no parameter is fitted to the target result and then renamed as a prediction. The method's components (hash segmentation, adaptive bit relaxing, dynamic matching objective adjustment) are specified by explicit equations (Eqs. 2-12) and are not defined in terms of the efficiency claim. The only self-citation is CoSHC [13], used as motivation and as one of several baselines; the central result does not depend on CoSHC's correctness because DJSRH, DSAH, and JDSH are external methods and show the same trend. Section VII explicitly flags dataset-size and baseline-selection threats, which are external-validity concerns rather than circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction of a claim to its inputs, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters (segment length, relaxing threshold, max relaxed bits, gamma) and on assumptions about deep hashing quality and training convergence. No new physical or semantic entities are introduced; the 'unknown' bit state is a training/inference encoding, not a new entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Hash segment length k = 16 bits
    Chosen as a power of 2 for processor efficiency; the paper states 8-bit segments cause too many collisions and 32-bit segments make positive-pair hits hard (Section V-B).
  • Relaxing threshold t = 0.5
    Pre-defined threshold in Eq. (5); bits with |o| <= t are allowed to be relaxed. Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Max relaxing bits per segment = 3
    Set in Implementation Details ('no more than three unknown bits'); storage cost grows as 2^r, acknowledged in Section V-B.
  • Relaxing exponent gamma = not reported
    Constant in Eq. (9) that amplifies converged bits; its value is not given, so the loss cannot be exactly reproduced.
  • Recall candidate set size = 300
    Top-300 candidates retrieved before re-ranking in the overall performance comparison (Section III-E); affects both time and accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Base deep hashing models produce hash codes where Hamming distance approximates semantic similarity.
    SECRET inherits the code-query hash codes from CoSHC/DJSRH/DSAH/JDSH; if these are meaningless, segment tables inherit the failure (Section II-B).
  • ad hoc to paper Low-magnitude hash outputs are the hard-to-align bits and can be safely treated as wildcards.
    Adaptive bits relaxing (Section II-C2) relies on this heuristic; no theoretical guarantee links |o_ij| to alignment error.
  • ad hoc to paper Alternating optimization between code and query hashing models converges to mutually aligned hash codes.
    The iterative training (Section II-C) has no convergence proof; if the two models reinforce each other's errors, the hash tables would not match.
  • standard math Standard math: sign function, cross-entropy loss, expectation over negative samples.
    Used in defining the hashing objectives (Eqs. 1, 9, 12).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SECRET: Towards Scalable and Efficient Code Retrieval via Segmented Deep Hashing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYXYZ3H5

@misc{pith2026241211728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SECRET: Towards Scalable and Efficient Code Retrieval via Segmented Deep Hashing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYXYZ3H5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11728}
}
read the original abstract

Code retrieval, which retrieves code snippets based on users' natural language descriptions, is widely used by developers and plays a pivotal role in real-world software development. The advent of deep learning has shifted the retrieval paradigm from lexical-based matching towards leveraging deep learning models to encode source code and queries into vector representations, facilitating code retrieval according to vector similarity. Despite the effectiveness of these models, managing large-scale code database presents significant challenges. Previous research proposes deep hashing-based methods, which generate hash codes for queries and code snippets and use Hamming distance for rapid recall of code candidates. However, this approach's reliance on linear scanning of the entire code base limits its scalability. To further improve the efficiency of large-scale code retrieval, we propose a novel approach SECRET (Scalable and Efficient Code Retrieval via SegmEnTed deep hashing). SECRET converts long hash codes calculated by existing deep hashing approaches into several short hash code segments through an iterative training strategy. After training, SECRET recalls code candidates by looking up the hash tables for each segment, the time complexity of recall can thus be greatly reduced. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that SECRET can drastically reduce the retrieval time by at least 95% while achieving comparable or even higher performance of existing deep hashing approaches. Besides, SECRET also exhibits superior performance and efficiency compared to the classical hash table-based approach known as LSH under the same number of hash tables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of recall with previous deep hashing approaches. Wenchao Gu Motivation Towards Intelligent Program Development based on Code Semantics Learning 91 Query 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 110 101 . . 111 . . ● × × 110 101 . . 111 × × ● 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Code Snippet Hash Collision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of recall with the combination of deep hashing approaches and SECRET. the hash bits that are hard to align during the training. • The comprehensive experiments on benchmarks demon￾strate that SECRET greatly reduces recall computational complexity while keeping advanced performances of pre￾vious deep hashing approaches. II. METHOD A. Overview [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall framework of SECRET. Initial Hashing Generation Training: train the code hashing model and query hashing model with representation vectors from the code encoder and query encoder; Iterative Training: consists of two sub-training steps which are code hashing alignment and query hashing alignment. In the sub-training step of hashing alignment, one of the hashing model will be fixed and provide the training obj… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Steps in the iterative training strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

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. PhoenixRepair: Rethinking Repair Strategy Exploration in Software Agents

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-agent repair framework that samples multiple edit locations and iteratively reflects on patch attempts reaches 76.0% Pass@1 on SWE-bench-Verified, up to a 7.8% relative gain over SWE-agent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code,

    J. Brandt, P. J. Guo, J. Lewenstein, M. Dontcheva, and S. R. Klemmer, “Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, Boston, MA, USA, April 4-9, 2009 , D. R. O. Jr., R. B. Arthur, K. Hinckley, M. R. Morri...

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Portfolio: finding relevant functions and their usage,

    C. McMillan, M. Grechanik, D. Poshyvanyk, Q. Xie, and C. Fu, “Portfolio: finding relevant functions and their usage,” in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu , HI, USA, May 21-28, 2011 , R. N. Taylor, H. C. Gall, and N. Medvidovic, Eds. ACM, 2011, pp. 111–120. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Codehow: Effective code search based on API understanding and extended boolean model (E),

    F. Lv, H. Zhang, J. Lou, S. Wang, D. Zhang, and J. Zhao, “Codehow: Effective code search based on API understanding and extended boolean model (E),” in 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2015, Lincoln, NE, USA, November 9-13, 2015 , M. B. Cohen, L. Grunske, and M. Whalen, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 2015, pp. 260...

    doi:10.1109/ase.2015.42 2015

  4. [4]

    Cocosoda: Effective contrastive learning for code search,

    E. Shi, Y . Wang, W. Gu, L. Du, H. Zhang, S. Han, D. Zhang, and H. Sun, “Cocosoda: Effective contrastive learning for code search,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2198–2210

    2023

  5. [5]

    Retrieval on source code: a neural code search,

    S. Sachdev, H. Li, S. Luan, S. Kim, K. Sen, and S. Chandra, “Retrieval on source code: a neural code search,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, MAPL@PLDI 2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 18-22, 2018, J. Gottschlich and A. Cheung, Eds. ACM, 2018, pp. 31–41. [Online]. Available: http...

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    When deep learning met code search,

    J. Cambronero, H. Li, S. Kim, K. Sen, and S. Chandra, “When deep learning met code search,” in Proceedings of the ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019, Tallinn, Estonia, August 26-30, 2019 , M. Dumas, D. Pfahl, S. Apel, and A. Russo, Eds. ACM, 2019, pp...

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Coacor: Code annotation for code retrieval with reinforcement learning,

    Z. Yao, J. R. Peddamail, and H. Sun, “Coacor: Code annotation for code retrieval with reinforcement learning,” in The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019, L. Liu, R. W. White, A. Mantrach, F. Silvestri, J. J. McAuley, R. Baeza-Yates, and L. Zia, Eds. ACM, 2019, pp. 2203–2214. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10...

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    degraphcs: Embedding variable-based flow graph for neural code search,

    C. Zeng, Y . Yu, S. Li, X. Xia, Z. Wang, M. Geng, L. Bai, W. Dong, and X. Liao, “degraphcs: Embedding variable-based flow graph for neural code search,” ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 34:1–34:27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3546066

    work page doi:10.1145/3546066 2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Deep code search,

    X. Gu, H. Zhang, and S. Kim, “Deep code search,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018 , M. Chaudron, I. Crnkovic, M. Chechik, and M. Harman, Eds. ACM, 2018, pp. 933–944. [Online]. Ava...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Codesearchnet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search,

    H. Husain, H. Wu, T. Gazit, M. Allamanis, and M. Brockschmidt, “Codesearchnet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search,” CoRR, vol. abs/1909.09436, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.09436

    1909 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cradle: Deep code retrieval based on semantic dependency learning,

    W. Gu, Z. Li, C. Gao, C. Wang, H. Zhang, Z. Xu, and M. R. Lyu, “Cradle: Deep code retrieval based on semantic dependency learning,” Neural Networks , vol. 141, pp. 385–394, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2021.04.019

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Retrieval augmented code generation and summarization,

    M. R. Parvez, W. U. Ahmad, S. Chakraborty, B. Ray, and K. Chang, “Retrieval augmented code generation and summarization,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 16-20 November, 2021 , M. Moens, ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Accelerating code search with deep hashing and code classification,

    W. Gu, Y . Wang, L. Du, H. Zhang, S. Han, D. Zhang, and M. R. Lyu, “Accelerating code search with deep hashing and code classification,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Irelan...

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    A survey on deep hashing methods,

    X. Luo, H. Wang, D. Wu, C. Chen, M. Deng, J. Huang, and X. Hua, “A survey on deep hashing methods,” ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15:1–15:50, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3532624

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Learning to hash: a comprehensive survey of deep learning-based hashing methods,

    A. Singh and S. Gupta, “Learning to hash: a comprehensive survey of deep learning-based hashing methods,” Knowl. Inf. Syst., vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 2565–2597, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-022-01734-0

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Deep hashing for multi-label image retrieval: a survey,

    J. Rodrigues, M. Cristo, and J. G. Colonna, “Deep hashing for multi-label image retrieval: a survey,” Artif. Intell. Rev. , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 5261–5307, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10462-020-09820-x

    2020

  9. [17]

    Learning to hash for indexing big data - A survey,

    J. Wang, W. Liu, S. Kumar, and S. Chang, “Learning to hash for indexing big data - A survey,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 34–57,

  10. [18]

    Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages,

    Z. Feng, D. Guo, D. Tang, N. Duan, X. Feng, M. Gong, L. Shou, B. Qin, T. Liu, D. Jiang, and M. Zhou, “Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November 20...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow,

    D. Guo, S. Ren, S. Lu, Z. Feng, D. Tang, S. Liu, L. Zhou, N. Duan, A. Svyatkovskiy, S. Fu, M. Tufano, S. K. Deng, C. B. Clement, D. Drain, N. Sundaresan, J. Yin, D. Jiang, and M. Zhou, “Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow,” in 9th International Conf...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Deep joint-semantics reconstructing hashing for large-scale unsupervised cross-modal retrieval,

    S. Su, Z. Zhong, and C. Zhang, “Deep joint-semantics reconstructing hashing for large-scale unsupervised cross-modal retrieval,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South), October 27 - November 2, 2019 . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3027–...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Deep semantic-alignment hashing for unsupervised cross-modal retrieval,

    D. Yang, D. Wu, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, B. Li, and W. Wang, “Deep semantic-alignment hashing for unsupervised cross-modal retrieval,” in Proceedings of the 2020 on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, ICMR 2020, Dublin, Ireland, June 8-11, 2020 , C. Gurrin, B. Þ. Jóns...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Joint-modal distribution-based similarity hashing for large-scale unsupervised deep cross-modal retrieval,

    S. Liu, S. Qian, Y . Guan, J. Zhan, and L. Ying, “Joint-modal distribution-based similarity hashing for large-scale unsupervised deep cross-modal retrieval,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIG...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions,

    M. Datar, N. Immorlica, P. Indyk, and V . S. Mirrokni, “Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry, Brooklyn, New York, USA, June 8-11, 2004 , J. Snoeyink and J. Boissonnat, Eds. ACM, 2...

    2004

  16. [24]

    Some simple effective approximations to the 2-poisson model for probabilistic weighted retrieval,

    S. E. Robertson and S. Walker, “Some simple effective approximations to the 2-poisson model for probabilistic weighted retrieval,” in Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Dublin, Ireland, 3-6 Ju...

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval,

    K. S. Jones, “A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval,” J. Documentation, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 493–502,

  18. [26]

    A multi- perspective architecture for semantic code search,

    R. Haldar, L. Wu, J. Xiong, and J. Hockenmaier, “A multi- perspective architecture for semantic code search,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020 , D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and ...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Improving code search with co-attentive representation learning,

    J. Shuai, L. Xu, C. Liu, M. Yan, X. Xia, and Y . Lei, “Improving code search with co-attentive representation learning,” in ICPC ’20: 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension, Seoul, Republic of Korea, July 13-15, 2020 . ACM, 2020, pp. 196–207. [Online]. Availabl...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Self-attention networks for code search,

    S. Fang, Y . Tan, T. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Self-attention networks for code search,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 134, p. 106542, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106542

    2021

  21. [29]

    Neural code search revisited: Enhancing code snippet retrieval through natural language intent,

    G. Heyman and T. V . Cutsem, “Neural code search revisited: Enhancing code snippet retrieval through natural language intent,” CoRR, vol. abs/2008.12193, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008. 12193

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, Eds., 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxi...

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Enriching word vectors with subword information,

    P. Bojanowski, E. Grave, A. Joulin, and T. Mikolov, “Enriching word vectors with subword information,” Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, vol. 5, pp. 135–146, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //transacl.org/ojs/index.php/tacl/article/view/999

    2017

  24. [32]

    Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pre-trained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation,

    Y . Wang, W. Wang, S. R. Joty, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pre-trained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / ...

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Spt- code: Sequence-to-sequence pre-training for learning source code representations,

    C. Niu, C. Li, V . Ng, J. Ge, L. Huang, and B. Luo, “Spt- code: Sequence-to-sequence pre-training for learning source code representations,” in 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 25-27, 2022 . ACM, 2022, pp....

    2022

  26. [34]

    Syncobert: Syntax-guided multi-modal contrastive pre-training for code representation,

    X. Wang, Y . Wang, F. Mi, P. Zhou, Y . Wan, X. Liu, L. Li, H. Wu, J. Liu, and X. Jiang, “Syncobert: Syntax-guided multi-modal contrastive pre-training for code representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04556 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,

    D. Guo, S. Lu, N. Duan, Y . Wang, M. Zhou, and J. Yin, “Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-2...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Self-supervised contrastive learning for code retrieval and summarization via semantic-preserving transformations,

    N. D. Q. Bui, Y . Yu, and L. Jiang, “Self-supervised contrastive learning for code retrieval and summarization via semantic-preserving transformations,” in SIGIR ’21: The 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Virtual Even...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Cocosoda: Effective contrastive learning for code search,

    E. Shi, Y . Wang, W. Gu, L. Du, H. Zhang, S. Han, D. Zhang, and H. Sun, “Cocosoda: Effective contrastive learning for code search,” in 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-20, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2198–2210. ...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Graphsearchnet: Enhancing gnns via capturing global dependencies for semantic code search,

    S. Liu, X. Xie, J. K. Siow, L. Ma, G. Meng, and Y . Liu, “Graphsearchnet: Enhancing gnns via capturing global dependencies for semantic code search,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng. , vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2839–2855,

  31. [39]

    LSH forest: self-tuning indexes for similarity search,

    M. Bawa, T. Condie, and P. Ganesan, “LSH forest: self-tuning indexes for similarity search,” in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2005, Chiba, Japan, May 10-14, 2005, A. Ellis and T. Hagino, Eds. ACM, 2005, pp. 651–660. [Online]. Available...

    2005

  32. [40]

    Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on dynamic collision counting,

    J. Gan, J. Feng, Q. Fang, and W. Ng, “Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on dynamic collision counting,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012 , K. S. Candan, Y . Chen, R. T. Snod...

    2012

  33. [41]

    Query-aware locality-sensitive hashing for approximate nearest neighbor search,

    Q. Huang, J. Feng, Y . Zhang, Q. Fang, and W. Ng, “Query-aware locality-sensitive hashing for approximate nearest neighbor search,” Proc. VLDB Endow., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p1-huang.pdf

    2015

  34. [42]

    Semantic hashing,

    R. Salakhutdinov and G. E. Hinton, “Semantic hashing,” Int. J. Approx. Reason., vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 969–978, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2008.11.006

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    Data fusion through cross-modality metric learning using similarity-sensitive hashing,

    M. M. Bronstein, A. M. Bronstein, F. Michel, and N. Paragios, “Data fusion through cross-modality metric learning using similarity-sensitive hashing,” in The Twenty-Third IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13-18 June ...

    2010

  36. [44]

    Large-scale supervised multimodal hashing with semantic correlation maximization,

    D. Zhang and W. Li, “Large-scale supervised multimodal hashing with semantic correlation maximization,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 27 -31, 2014, Québec City, Québec, Canada , C. E. Brodley and P. Stone, Eds. AAAI Press,...

    2014

  37. [45]

    Semantics-preserving hashing for cross-view retrieval,

    Z. Lin, G. Ding, M. Hu, and J. Wang, “Semantics-preserving hashing for cross-view retrieval,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015 . IEEE Computer Society, 2015, pp. 3864–3872. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    2015

  38. [46]

    Multi-scale correlation for sequential cross-modal hashing learning,

    Z. Ye and Y . Peng, “Multi-scale correlation for sequential cross-modal hashing learning,” in 2018 ACM Multimedia Conference on Multimedia Conference, MM 2018, Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 22-26, 2018 , S. Boll, K. M. Lee, J. Luo, W. Zhu, H. Byun, C. W. Chen, R. Lienhart,...

    2018

  39. [47]

    Collective matrix factorization hashing for multimodal data,

    G. Ding, Y . Guo, and J. Zhou, “Collective matrix factorization hashing for multimodal data,” in 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2014, Columbus, OH, USA, June 23-28, 2014. IEEE Computer Society, 2014, pp. 2083–2090. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    Unsupervised deep hashing via binary latent factor models for large-scale cross-modal retrieval,

    G. Wu, Z. Lin, J. Han, L. Liu, G. Ding, B. Zhang, and J. Shen, “Unsupervised deep hashing via binary latent factor models for large-scale cross-modal retrieval,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13...

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Ternary hashing,

    C. Liu, L. Fan, K. W. Ng, Y . Jin, C. Ju, T. Zhang, C. S. Chan, and Q. Yang, “Ternary hashing,” CoRR, vol. abs/2103.09173, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.09173

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Deep variational and structural hashing,

    V . E. Liong, J. Lu, L. Duan, and Y . Tan, “Deep variational and structural hashing,” pp. 580–595, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2882816

    2020

  43. [2004]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410410560573

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410410560573

    doi

  44. [2016]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2487976

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2487976

    2015

  45. [2023]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3233901

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3233901

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.