Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

When Deep Learning Met Code Search

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 1905.03813 v4 pith:ESQI24ZE submitted 2019-05-09 cs.SE cs.CLcs.LG

When Deep Learning Met Code Search

classification cs.SE cs.CLcs.LG
keywords codesupervisionmathittechniquescommoncorpusevaluationlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

There have been multiple recent proposals on using deep neural networks for code search using natural language. Common across these proposals is the idea of $\mathit{embedding}$ code and natural language queries, into real vectors and then using vector distance to approximate semantic correlation between code and the query. Multiple approaches exist for learning these embeddings, including $\mathit{unsupervised}$ techniques, which rely only on a corpus of code examples, and $\mathit{supervised}$ techniques, which use an $\mathit{aligned}$ corpus of paired code and natural language descriptions. The goal of this supervision is to produce embeddings that are more similar for a query and the corresponding desired code snippet. Clearly, there are choices in whether to use supervised techniques at all, and if one does, what sort of network and training to use for supervision. This paper is the first to evaluate these choices systematically. To this end, we assembled implementations of state-of-the-art techniques to run on a common platform, training and evaluation corpora. To explore the design space in network complexity, we also introduced a new design point that is a $\mathit{minimal}$ supervision extension to an existing unsupervised technique. Our evaluation shows that: 1. adding supervision to an existing unsupervised technique can improve performance, though not necessarily by much; 2. simple networks for supervision can be more effective that more sophisticated sequence-based networks for code search; 3. while it is common to use docstrings to carry out supervision, there is a sizeable gap between the effectiveness of docstrings and a more query-appropriate supervision corpus. The evaluation dataset is now available at arXiv:1908.09804

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CodeSearchNet Challenge: Evaluating the State of Semantic Code Search

    cs.LG 2019-09 accept novelty 7.0

    Releases a large multi-language code corpus and expert-annotated challenge to benchmark semantic code search.

  2. SAIL: Sound Abstract Interpreters with LLMs

    cs.PL 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0

    SAIL synthesizes globally sound abstract transformers for neural-network operators by combining LLM generation with syntactic validation, SMT-based soundness checking, and cost-guided iterative refinement.