Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Optimizing Datasets for Code Summarization: Is Code-Comment Coherence Enough?

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 2502.07611 v1 pith:GA4V5EKF submitted 2025-02-11 cs.SE

Optimizing Datasets for Code Summarization: Is Code-Comment Coherence Enough?

classification cs.SE
keywords codedatasetssummarizationinstancestrainingcode-commentcoherencecontain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automated code summarization is a long-standing goal for code comprehension. This task automatically generates documentation using a given method. Deep Learning (DL)-based approaches have been proven beneficial for various software engineering (SE) tasks, including this one. Most state-of-the-art datasets for code summarization are automatically mined from GitHub and, thus, might contain erroneous or sub-optimal examples. Previous work showed that using a simple rule-based approach for removing noisy instances allows for a tangible reduction of the training set size while not reducing the effectiveness of the trained models. Motivated by this finding, we conjecture that it is possible to further reduce the dataset size by removing instances that contain different issues. In this paper, we explore the extent to which code-comment coherence, a specific quality attribute of code summaries, can be used to optimize code summarization datasets. Specifically, we hypothesize that removing incoherent code-comment pairs might positively impact the effectiveness of the models. To do this, we rely on SIDE, a recently introduced metric for code-summary coherence. We examine multiple selectivity levels of training instances from two state-of-the-art datasets (TL-CodeSum and Funcom) and evaluate the resulting models on three manually curated test sets. The results show that even halving the training set sizes does not significantly affect the model's ability to generate summaries. However, when comparing the most restrictive selection strategy with a simpler one that randomly selects the training instances, we observe that the resulting accuracy of the model also does not change. This result suggests that (i) current datasets contain many irrelevant examples, and (ii) different quality attributes should be explored for optimizing code summarization datasets.

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. Not All Tokens Matter: Data-Centric Optimization for Efficient Code Summarization

    cs.SE 2026-01 reject novelty 6.0

    The best token-pruning strategy for code summarization is language-dependent: AST inputs help Java but hurt Python, while function signatures are best for Python.

  2. Parameter-Efficient Multi-Task Fine-Tuning in Code-Related Tasks

    cs.SE 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Multi-task QLoRA on Qwen2.5-Coder matches or beats single-task QLoRA and full fine-tuning for code generation and Python summarization, but lags in Java-to-C# translation.