Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Evaluating the Impact of Source Code Parsers on ML4SE Models

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 2206.08713 v1 pith:MSWIEUQP submitted 2022-06-17 cs.SE cs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords modelsparserscodedifferentqualityimpactresearcherssuperparser
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

As researchers and practitioners apply Machine Learning to increasingly more software engineering problems, the approaches they use become more sophisticated. A lot of modern approaches utilize internal code structure in the form of an abstract syntax tree (AST) or its extensions: path-based representation, complex graph combining AST with additional edges. Even though the process of extracting ASTs from code can be done with different parsers, the impact of choosing a parser on the final model quality remains unstudied. Moreover, researchers often omit the exact details of extracting particular code representations. In this work, we evaluate two models, namely Code2Seq and TreeLSTM, in the method name prediction task backed by eight different parsers for the Java language. To unify the process of data preparation with different parsers, we develop SuperParser, a multi-language parser-agnostic library based on PathMiner. SuperParser facilitates the end-to-end creation of datasets suitable for training and evaluation of ML models that work with structural information from source code. Our results demonstrate that trees built by different parsers vary in their structure and content. We then analyze how this diversity affects the models' quality and show that the quality gap between the most and least suitable parsers for both models turns out to be significant. Finally, we discuss other features of the parsers that researchers and practitioners should take into account when selecting a parser along with the impact on the models' quality. The code of SuperParser is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6366591. We also publish Java-norm, the dataset we use to evaluate the models: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6366599.

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. AsserT5: Test Assertion Generation Using a Fine-Tuned Code Language Model

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fine-tuned CodeT5 model generates exact-match test assertions in up to 59.5% of cases, but detects only 33 of 138 real Defects4J bugs.

  2. GP-Tree: An in-memory spatial index combining adaptive grid cells with a prefix tree for efficient spatial querying

    cs.DB 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    GP-Tree indexes spatial objects via adaptive grid-cell approximations in a prefix tree and claims up to 10× faster range, distance, and k-NN queries than STR-Tree and Quad-Tree.

  3. ScaMaha: A Tool for Parsing, Analyzing, and Visualizing Object-Oriented Software Systems

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper introduces ScaMaha, a Java static-analysis tool for parsing code into XML, computing metrics, and visualizing structure, with a claimed yet weakly verified 100% precision and recall on five case studies.

Pith tools