Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Abstract Syntax Tree for Programming Language Understanding and Representation: How Far Are We?

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 2312.00413 v1 pith:WVTPLFSO submitted 2023-12-01 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CLcs.PL

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.CLcs.PL
keywords coderepresentationtasksast-basedcode-relatedmodelstrainedlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Programming language understanding and representation (a.k.a code representation learning) has always been a hot and challenging task in software engineering. It aims to apply deep learning techniques to produce numerical representations of the source code features while preserving its semantics. These representations can be used for facilitating subsequent code-related tasks. The abstract syntax tree (AST), a fundamental code feature, illustrates the syntactic information of the source code and has been widely used in code representation learning. However, there is still a lack of systematic and quantitative evaluation of how well AST-based code representation facilitates subsequent code-related tasks. In this paper, we first conduct a comprehensive empirical study to explore the effectiveness of the AST-based code representation in facilitating follow-up code-related tasks. To do so, we compare the performance of models trained with code token sequence (Token for short) based code representation and AST-based code representation on three popular types of code-related tasks. Surprisingly, the overall quantitative statistical results demonstrate that models trained with AST-based code representation consistently perform worse across all three tasks compared to models trained with Token-based code representation. Our further quantitative analysis reveals that models trained with AST-based code representation outperform models trained with Token-based code representation in certain subsets of samples across all three tasks. We also conduct comprehensive experiments to evaluate and reveal the impact of the choice of AST parsing/preprocessing/encoding methods on AST-based code representation and subsequent code-related tasks. Our study provides future researchers with detailed guidance on how to select solutions at each stage to fully exploit AST.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Breaking the Myth: Can Small Models Infer Postconditions Too?

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Coder-7B on 1.5K reasoning examples yields postcondition generation close to GPT-4o and better than 32B open models on Defects4J.

  2. Agent4cs: A Multi-agent System for Code Summarization in Large Hierarchical Codebases

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-agent bottom-up framework (summarizer + keyword extractor + QA) improves hierarchical code-summary consistency by ~8% and normalized keyword coverage by up to 38% over structured prompting baselines.

  3. Improving vulnerability type prediction and line-level detection via adversarial training-based data augmentation and multi-task learning

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    EDAT-MTL, combining adversarial embedding training with multi-task learning, reports substantial F1 and localization gains over baselines on Big-Vul.

Pith tools