Papers › An Empirical Study on Code Comment Completion
An Empirical Study on Code Comment Completion
Antonio Mastropaolo, Emad Aghajani, Luca Pascarella, Gabriele Bavota
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Code comments play a prominent role in program comprehension activities. However, source code is not always documented and code and comments not always co-evolve. To deal with these issues, researchers have proposed techniques to automatically generate comments documenting a given code at hand. The most recent works in the area applied deep learning (DL) techniques to support such a task. Despite the achieved advances, the empirical evaluations of these approaches show that they are still far from a performance level that would make them valuable for developers. We tackle a simpler and related problem: Code comment completion. Instead of generating a comment for a given code from scratch, we investigate the extent to which state-of-the-art techniques can help developers in writing comments faster. We present a large-scale study in which we empirically assess how a simple n-gram model and the recently proposed Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer (T5) architecture can perform in autocompleting a code comment the developer is typing. The achieved results show the superiority of the T5 model, despite the n-gram model being a competitive solution.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections