Pith. sign in

REVIEW

An empirical study on Java method name suggestion: are we there yet?

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 2201.08570 v1 pith:WGACQOYD submitted 2022-01-21 cs.SE

An empirical study on Java method name suggestion: are we there yet?

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

A large-scale evaluation for current naming approaches substantiates that such approaches are accurate. However, it is less known about which categories of method names work well via such naming approaches and how's the performance of naming approaches. To point out the superiority of the current naming approach, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study on such approaches in a new dataset. Moreover, we analyze the successful naming approaches above and find that: (1) around 60% of the accepted recommendation names are made on prefixes within get, set, is, and test. (2) A large portion (19.3%) of method names successfully recommended could be derived from the given method bodies. The comparisons also demonstrate the superior performance of the empirical study.

discussion (0)

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