Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Consider What Humans Consider: Optimizing Commit Message Leveraging Contexts Considered By Human

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 2503.11960 v2 pith:KMZSY5EV submitted 2025-03-15 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords messagescommitcontextsmessageconsiderhuman-writtendevelopershigh-quality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Commit messages are crucial in software development, supporting maintenance tasks and communication among developers. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced Commit Message Generation (CMG) using various software contexts, some contexts developers consider to write high-quality commit messages are often missed by CMG techniques and can't be easily retrieved or even retrieved at all by automated tools. To address this, we propose Commit Message Optimization (CMO), which enhances human-written messages by leveraging LLMs and search-based optimization. CMO starts with human-written messages and iteratively improves them by integrating key contexts and feedback from external evaluators. Our extensive evaluation shows CMO generates commit messages that are significantly more Rational, Comprehensive, and Expressive while outperforming state-of-the-art CMG methods and human messages 40.3% to 78.4% of the time. Moreover, CMO can support existing CMG techniques to further improve message quality and generate high-quality messages when the human-written ones are left blank.

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. Which Prompting Technique Should I Use? An Empirical Investigation of Prompting Techniques for Software Engineering Tasks

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across ten software engineering tasks and four LLMs, no prompting technique wins consistently; ES-KNN is best on many tasks, some techniques underperform the baseline, and USC is best for code QA and code generation.

Pith tools