What's in a method name?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02323-5

IF: 48

2024-06-14

Nature Methods

Abstract:Nature Methods, Published online: 12 June 2024; doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02323-5 We provide some advice about how to best name methods and software tools.

biochemical research methods

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Properly and Automatically Naming Java Methods: A Machine Learning Based Approach

Shusi Yu,Ruichang Zhang,Jihong Guan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35527-1_20

2012-01-01

Abstract:Method names play an important role in software maintenance. A good name explains the function of a method to developers, while bad names mislead them. However, method naming is a complicated task. For example, Java programming specification suggests that method names should be verbs or verb phrases. Previous research shows that each identical verb is related to at least one name rule and each rule is consists of 30 conditions. Since large-scale software contains hundreds of identical verbs, choosing the proper verb for a method is related to thousands of conditions. There exists some semi-automated method verb rule mining techniques. these rules are useful to find if a method uses the wrong verb. However, they are not effective for general case when no rules are applicable. In addition, none of them discusses how to find the proper target of the verb. This paper proposes an automated method-naming tool, based on machine learning approach. Experiments on Eclipse and other Java projects show that our tool can successfully predict the verbs of 70% methods and pick out the proper targets in method contents for 90% methods.
How are We Detecting Inconsistent Method Names? An Empirical Study from Code Review Perspective

Kisub Kim,Xin Zhou,Dongsun Kim,Julia Lawall,Kui Liu,Tegawendé F. Bissyandé,Jacques Klein,Jaekwon Lee,David Lo

2023-08-24

Abstract:Proper naming of methods can make program code easier to understand, and thus enhance software maintainability. Yet, developers may use inconsistent names due to poor communication or a lack of familiarity with conventions within the software development lifecycle. To address this issue, much research effort has been invested into building automatic tools that can check for method name inconsistency and recommend consistent names. However, existing datasets generally do not provide precise details about why a method name was deemed improper and required to be changed. Such information can give useful hints on how to improve the recommendation of adequate method names. Accordingly, we construct a sample method-naming benchmark, ReName4J, by matching name changes with code reviews. We then present an empirical study on how state-of-the-art techniques perform in detecting or recommending consistent and inconsistent method names based on ReName4J. The main purpose of the study is to reveal a different perspective based on reviewed names rather than proposing a complete benchmark. We find that the existing techniques underperform on our review-driven benchmark, both in inconsistent checking and the recommendation. We further identify potential biases in the evaluation of existing techniques, which future research should consider thoroughly.

Software Engineering
Machine Learning Based Recommendation of Method Names: How Far Are We

Lin Jiang,Hui Liu,He Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ase.2019.00062

2019-01-01

Abstract:High quality method names are critical for the readability and maintainability of programs. However, constructing concise and consistent method names is often challenging, especially for inexperienced developers. To this end, advanced machine learning techniques have been recently leveraged to recommend method names automatically for given method bodies/implementation. Recent large-scale evaluations also suggest that such approaches are accurate. However, little is known about where and why such approaches work or don't work. To figure out the state of the art as well as the rationale for the success/failure, in this paper we conduct an empirical study on the state-of-the-art approach code2vec. We assess code2vec on a new dataset with more realistic settings. Our evaluation results suggest that although switching to new dataset does not significantly influence the performance, more realistic settings do significantly reduce the performance of code2vec. Further analysis on the successfully recommended method names also reveals the following findings: 1) around half (48.3%) of the accepted recommendations are made on getter/setter methods; 2) a large portion (19.2%) of the successfully recommended method names could be copied from the given bodies. To further validate its usefulness, we ask developers to manually score the difficulty in naming methods they developed. Code2vec is then applied to such manually scored methods to evaluate how often it works in need. Our evaluation results suggest that code2vec rarely works when it is really needed. Finally, to intuitively reveal the state of the art and to investigate the possibility of designing simple and straightforward alternative approaches, we propose a heuristics based approach to recommending method names. Evaluation results on large-scale dataset suggest that this simple heuristics-based approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art machine learning based approach, improving precision and recall by 65.25% and 22.45%, respectively. The comparison suggests that machine learning based recommendation of method names may still have a long way to go.
On the Naming of Methods: A Survey of Professional Developers

Reem S. AlSuhaibani,Christian D. Newman,Michael J. Decker,Michael L. Collard,Jonathan I. Maletic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.13555

2021-02-26

Abstract:This paper describes the results of a large (+1100 responses) survey of professional software developers concerning standards for naming source code methods. The various standards for source code method names are derived from and supported in the software engineering literature. The goal of the survey is to determine if there is a general consensus among developers that the standards are accepted and used in practice. Additionally, the paper examines factors such as years of experience and programming language knowledge in the context of survey responses. The survey results show that participants very much agree about the importance of various standards and how they apply to names. Additionally, the survey shows that years of experience and the programming language the participants use has almost no effect on their responses.

Software Engineering
Research Methods: What's in the Name?

Heting Chu,Qing Ke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.11.001

IF: 3.209

2017-01-01

Library & Information Science Research

Abstract:Research methods are applied in all kinds of studies, though no consensus exists regarding what constitutes a research method and how research methods should be categorized. Over 1900 research articles were obtained from three major journals published between 2001 and 2010 in library and information science (LIS). Each selected article was coded using a schema of research methods developed in this study. The coded data, along with related publications, were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. This exploration shows that research methods comprise data collection techniques (e.g., interview, observation) and data analysis techniques (e.g., qualitative, quantitative). Research methods should perhaps be categorized by data collection technique, as it makes more sense than if research methods are labeled as qualitative or quantitative. This study is one of the many efforts to facilitate a better understanding of research methods in LIS and help scholars make more informed decisions about research method selection in their endeavors. Its implications can be extended to LIS research education, training, and advocacy. Because research methods themselves are not discipline-specific, researchers beyond the LIS field would benefit from this study as well.
Just-In-Time Method Name Updating with Heuristics and Neural Model

Zhenting Guo,Meng Yan,Hongyan Li,Zhezhe Chen,Weifeng Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/qrs60937.2023.00074

2023-01-01

Abstract:Ensuring the quality and conciseness of method names is pivotal for the readability and maintainability of source code. However, for developers, it often presents challenges, particularly during the course of code evolution. Throughout this process, developers sometimes may neglect to update the method name, resulting in inconsistency which could potentially mislead developers and introduce future bugs. In this paper, we propose the task of “Just-In-Time (JIT) Method Name Updating” which automatically performs method name updates to avoid inconsistent names and fix them before being introduced into code bases. Specifically, we propose an approach that combines heuristic rules and a neural model. The heuristic rule-based component mainly focuses on the single-token changes for our empirical findings that the proportion of single-token modifications is extensive, and often corresponds to code-indicative updates. The neural model-based component is a customized Seq2seq model considering code changes and the new method body’s token type. To evaluate our approach, we conduct extensive experiments on the collected dataset with over 108K method name-body co-change samples from popular Java projects. The results show that our method outperforms the three baselines on all metrics. In particular, our approach achieves a significant improvement in Accuracy and improves method generation baseline by 23.5%.
Shortening Overlong Method Names with Abbreviations

Yanjie Jiang,Hui Liu,Shing Chi Cheung,Lu Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3676959

IF: 3.685

2024-07-08

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Abstract:Methods should be named to summarize their responsibilities meaningfully. When a method has a non-trivial responsibility, it may require a naming using multiple words. However, overlong method names are susceptible to typos and reduced readability (e.g., displaying a statement partially in standard screen width or splitting it into multiple lines). Programming naming conventions commonly adopt a maximal length (in characters) for identifiers. In practice, developers may not necessarily find a meaningful name that follows such naming conventions when coding a non-trivial method. This paper presents the first automated technique (called NameCompressor ) to shorten overlong method names. Our inspiration is that many lengthy words/phrases in an overlong method name have known and unambiguous abbreviations. The use of these abbreviations for method names is common. To shorten an overlong method name, NameCompressor employs three compression techniques, i.e., context-aware compression, probability-based compression, and machine learning-based compression, to find appropriate abbreviations for the words/phrases in the method name. We evaluate NameCompressor on a dataset of 700 overlong method names. It correctly generates 613 short names identical to those specified by the developers of these methods.

computer science, software engineering
How Important Are Good Method Names in Neural Code Generation? A Model Robustness Perspective

Guang Yang,Yu Zhou,Wenhua Yang,Tao Yue,Xiang Chen,Taolue Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630010

IF: 3.685

2023-01-01

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Abstract:Pre-trained code generation models (PCGMs) have been widely applied in neural code generation, which can generate executable code from functional descriptions in natural languages, possibly together with signatures. Despite substantial performance improvement of PCGMs, the role of method names in neural code generation has not been thoroughly investigated. In this article, we study and demonstrate the potential of benefiting from method names to enhance the performance of PCGMs from a model robustness perspective. Specifically, we propose a novel approach, named neuRAl coDe generAtor Robustifier (RADAR). RADAR consists of two components: RADAR-Attack and RADAR-Defense. The former attacks a PCGM by generating adversarial method names as part of the input, which are semantic and visual similar to the original input but may trick the PCGM to generate completely unrelated code snippets. As a countermeasure to such attacks, RADAR-Defense synthesizes a newmethod name fromthe functional description and supplies it to the PCGM. Evaluation results show that RADAR-Attack can reduce the CodeBLEU of generated code by 19.72% to 38.74% in three state-of-the-art PCGMs (i.e., CodeGPT, PLBART, and CodeT5) in the fine-tuning code generation task and reduce the Pass@1 of generated code by 32.28% to 44.42% in three state-of-the-art PCGMs (i.e., Replit, CodeGen, and CodeT5+) in the zero-shot code generation task. Moreover, RADAR-Defense is able to reinstate the performance of PCGMs with synthesized method names. These results highlight the importance of good method names in neural code generation and implicate the benefits of studying model robustness in software engineering.
Keywords Guided Method Name Generation

Fan Ge,Li Kuang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/icpc52881.2021.00027

2021-01-01

Abstract:High quality method names are descriptive and readable, which are helpful for code development and maintenance. The majority of recent research suggest method names based on the text summarization approach. They take the token sequence and abstract syntax tree of the source code as input, and generate method names through a powerful neural network based model. However, the tokens composing the method name are closely related to the entity name within its method implementation. Actually, high proportions of the tokens in method name can be found in its corresponding method implementation, which makes it possible for incorporating these common shared token information to improve the performance of method naming task. Inspired by this key observation, we propose a two-stage keywords guided method name generation approach to suggest method names. Specifically, we decompose the method naming task into two subtasks, including keywords extraction task and method name generation task. For the keywords extraction task, we apply a graph neural network based model to extract the keywords from source code. For the method name generation task, we utilize the extracted keywords to guide the method name generation model. We apply a dual selective gate in encoder to control the information flow, and a dual attention mechanism in decoder to combine the semantics of input code sequence and keywords. Experiment results on an open source dataset demonstrate that keywords guidance can facilitate method naming task, which enables our model to outperform the competitive state-of-the-art models by margins of 1.5%-3.5% in ROUGE metrics. Especially when programs share one common token with method names, our approach improves the absolute ROUGE-1 score by 7.8%.
Deep Learning Based Identification of Inconsistent Method Names: How Far Are We?

Taiming Wang,Yuxia Zhang,Lin Jiang,Yi Tang,Guangjie Li,Hui Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10592-z

IF: 3.762

2024-01-01

Empirical Software Engineering

Abstract:For any software system, concise and meaningful method names are critical for program comprehension and maintenance. However, for various reasons, the method names might be inconsistent with their corresponding implementations. Such inconsistent method names are confusing and misleading, often resulting in incorrect method invocations. To this end, a few intelligent deep learning-based approaches based on neural networks have been proposed to identify such inconsistent method names in the industry. Existing evaluations suggest that the performance of such DL-based approaches is promising. However, the evaluations are conducted with a perfectly balanced dataset where the number of inconsistent method names is exactly equivalent to that of consistent ones. In addition, the construction method of this balanced dataset is flawed, leading to false positives in this dataset. Consequently, the reported performance may not represent their efficiency in the field where most method names are consistent with their corresponding method bodies and only a small part of method names are inconsistent with corresponding method bodies. To this end, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study to assess the state-of-the-art DL-based approaches in the automated identification of inconsistent method names. We first build a new benchmark (dataset) by using both automatic identification from commit history and manual inspection by developers, aiming to reduce the number of false positives. Based on the benchmark, we evaluate five representative DL-based approaches to identifying inconsistent method names (one is retrieval-based and two are generation-based). Our evaluation results suggest that the performance of the evaluated approaches is substantially reduced when we switch from the existing balanced dataset to our new benchmark. Furthermore, to reveal where and why the evaluated approaches work/fail, we conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses of the evaluation results. Our analysis results suggest that the evaluated approaches work well on methods with simple bodies and short names, and retrieval-based approaches are especially good at methods whose names start with popular first sub-tokens. Retrieval-based approaches fail frequently because the adopted method representation technique is not efficient enough. Another possible reason for the failures is their unverified rationale, i.e., two methods with similar bodies should have similar names. Generation-based approaches frequently fail because of inaccurate similarity calculation formulas and immature method name generation techniques. Through the data analysis, we also propose two possible ways for better identifying inconsistent method names by leveraging contrastive learning and LLMs. Overall, our empirical study suggests that the state-of-the-art DL-based approaches in inconsistent method name identification deserve significant improvement before applying them to practical software systems.
Why they take risks

Vivien Marx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02432-1

IF: 48

2024-09-19

Nature Methods

Abstract:Nature Methods, Published online: 18 September 2024; doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02432-1 Developing new methods takes passion and a penchant for risk-taking.

biochemical research methods
Reproducing, Extending, and Analyzing Naming Experiments

Rachel Alpern,Ido Lazer,Issar Tzachor,Hanit Hakim,Sapir Weissbuch,Dror G. Feitelson

2024-02-15

Abstract:Naming is very important in software development, as names are often the only vehicle of meaning about what the code is intended to do. A recent study on how developers choose names collected the names given by different developers for the same objects. This enabled a study of these names' diversity and structure, and the construction of a model of how names are created. We reproduce different parts of this study in three independent experiments. Importantly, we employ methodological variations rather than striving of an exact replication. When the same results are obtained this then boosts our confidence in their validity by demonstrating that they do not depend on the methodology.

Software Engineering
The method developer's guide to oligonucleotide design

Leonie Wenson,Mattias Leino,Malin Jarvius,Johan Heldin,Björn Koos,Ola Söderberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14789450.2024.2318565

2024-02-18

Expert Review of Proteomics

Abstract:Introduction Development of new methods is essential to make great leaps in science, opening up new avenues for research, but the process behind method development is seldom described.

biochemical research methods
How Developers Choose Names

Dror G. Feitelson,Ayelet Mizrahi,Nofar Noy,Aviad Ben Shabat,Or Eliyahu,Roy Sheffer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.2976920

2021-03-13

Abstract:The names of variables and functions serve as implicit documentation and are instrumental for program comprehension. But choosing good meaningful names is hard. We perform a sequence of experiments in which a total of 334 subjects are required to choose names in given programming scenarios. The first experiment shows that the probability that two developers would select the same name is low: in the 47 instances in our experiments the median probability was only 6.9%. At the same time, given that a specific name is chosen, it is usually understood by the majority of developers. Analysis of the names given in the experiment suggests a model where naming is a (not necessarily cognizant or serial) three-step process: (1) selecting the concepts to include in the name, (2) choosing the words to represent each concept, and (3) constructing a name using these words. A followup experiment, using the same experimental setup, then checked whether using this model explicitly can improve the quality of names. The results were that names selected by subjects using the model were judged by two independent judges to be superior to names chosen in the original experiment by a ratio of two-to-one. Using the model appears to encourage the use of more concepts and longer names.

Software Engineering
Multiple names for multi-scope analytical methods, more than a semantic issue

María Verónica Cesio,Horacio Heinzen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2024.464687

IF: 4.601

2024-02-03

Journal of Chromatography A

Abstract:The use of multiple names for multi-scope analytical methods is often confusing. More precise classification to better accommodate the scope of analytical validation and application is needed.

chemistry, analytical,biochemical research methods
Peer review demystified: part 2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02258-x

IF: 48

2024-04-13

Nature Methods

Abstract:Nature Methods, Published online: 12 April 2024; doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02258-x We continue our explanation of the peer review process at Nature Methods.

biochemical research methods
Voices in Methods Development

Polina Anikeeva,Edward Boyden,Clifford Brangwynne,Ibrahim I. Cissé,Oliver Fiehn,Petra Fromme,Anne-Claude Gingras,Casey S. Greene,Edith Heard,Stefan W. Hell,Elizabeth Hillman,Grant Jay Jensen,Rachel Karchin,Laura L. Kiessling,Benjamin P. Kleinstiver,Rob Knight,Philipp Kukura,Madeline A. Lancaster,Nicholas Loman,Loren Looger,Emma Lundberg,Qingming Luo,Atsushi Miyawaki,Eugene W. Myers Jr.,Garry P. Nolan,Paola Picotti,Wolf Reik,Markus Sauer,Alex K. Shalek,Jay Shendure,Nikolai Slavov,Amos Tanay,Olga Troyanskaya,David van Valen,Hong-Wei Wang,Chengqi Yi,Peng Yin,Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz,Xiaowei Zhuang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0585-6

IF: 48

2019-01-01

Nature Methods

Abstract:To mark the 15th anniversary of Nature Methods, we asked scientists from across diverse fields of basic biology research for their views on the most exciting and essential methodological challenges that their communities are poised to tackle in the near future.
Registered Reports at Nature Methods

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01407-4

IF: 48

2022-02-01

Nature Methods

Abstract:Nature Methods is introducing a new article format: Registered Reports. We encourage all authors interested in submitting comparative analyses of the performance of established, related tools or methods to familiarize themselves with this alternative approach to peer review.

biochemical research methods
Academic Naming: Changing Patterns of Noun Use in Research Writing

Ken Hyland,Feng (Kevin) Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242211019080

2021-01-01

Journal of English Linguistics

Abstract:In this paper we explore the ways academics name processes as things and how these practices have changed over the past fifty years. Focusing on nominalization, noun-noun sequences, and acronyms, we document an increase in these features across a corpus of 2.2 million words within a consistent set of journals from four disciplines. Our results show that nominalizations and acronyms have increased in all four fields, particularly in applied linguistics and sociology, and that while noun-noun sequences have fallen in electrical engineering, they have risen in the other disciplines, especially sociology. We also suggest that noun-noun phrases have increasingly come to name methodological approaches, rather than concepts or objects, and we seek to account for these changes. We observe that these increases in naming are related to the need for succinctness in modern research writing and the advantages of endowing named objects with a real existence which can then be credited with explanatory authority. We question, however, the appropriacy of these practices for interpretation in the social sciences.
Formation of prokaryote names from personal names: a review of current practice and a proposal to emend Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes

Mark J. Pallen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.006233

IF: 2.689

2024-01-18

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY

Abstract:The practice of naming elements from the natural world after notable individuals stretches back to ancient times. This practice of creating eponyms—terms derived from personal names—has been carried forward into prokaryotic nomenclature, where the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) sets guidelines for creating scientific names from personal names. However, these guidelines can be seen as culturally biased, disjointed and, on occasion, misguided. Here, with the goal of modernizing these recommendations to render them more user-friendly, coherent and inclusive, I review current practice in the light of precedents and key linguistic and cultural principles, while questioning the applicability of the first-name/last-name paradigm for many cultural traditions. Procedural challenges include romanization of the personal name (including handling of diacritics), creation of a short and agreeable latinized stem, assignment of the stem to a declension and addition of suffixes or compound word components to create genus names or species epithets, customizing the approach for names and stems that end in a vowel. I review the pros and cons of stem augmentation, which involves addition of an extra 'i' to the original stem. Next, I formulate a coherent workflow, which I incorporate into a Python script to enable computer-based automation of name creation. Rather than following the ICNP in limiting discussion to a few dozen mainly European names, I examine how these principles work out when applied to the tens of thousands of last names under which scientists publish in the PubMed database, focusing on edge cases where conventional approaches fail, particularly very short and very long names. Drawing on these explorations and analyses, I propose emendations to the advice currently presented in the ICNP to usher in a modern, consistent, pragmatic and globally inclusive approach to the creation of prokaryotic eponyms.

microbiology

What's in a method name?

Properly and Automatically Naming Java Methods: A Machine Learning Based Approach

How are We Detecting Inconsistent Method Names? An Empirical Study from Code Review Perspective

Machine Learning Based Recommendation of Method Names: How Far Are We

On the Naming of Methods: A Survey of Professional Developers

Research Methods: What's in the Name?

Just-In-Time Method Name Updating with Heuristics and Neural Model

Shortening Overlong Method Names with Abbreviations

How Important Are Good Method Names in Neural Code Generation? A Model Robustness Perspective

Keywords Guided Method Name Generation

Deep Learning Based Identification of Inconsistent Method Names: How Far Are We?

Why they take risks

Reproducing, Extending, and Analyzing Naming Experiments

The method developer's guide to oligonucleotide design

How Developers Choose Names

Multiple names for multi-scope analytical methods, more than a semantic issue

Peer review demystified: part 2

Voices in Methods Development

Registered Reports at Nature Methods

Academic Naming: Changing Patterns of Noun Use in Research Writing

Formation of prokaryote names from personal names: a review of current practice and a proposal to emend Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes