skip to main content
10.1145/3303772.3303823acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Exploring Programming Semantic Analytics with Deep Learning Models

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

There are numerous studies have reported the effectiveness of example-based programming learning. However, less is explored recommending code examples with advanced Machine Learning-based models. In this work, we propose a new method to explore the semantic analytics between programming codes and the annotations. We hypothesize that these semantics analytics will capture mass amount of valuable information that can be used as features to build predictive models. We evaluated the proposed semantic analytics extraction method with multiple deep learning algorithms. Results showed that deep learning models outperformed other models and baseline in most cases. Further analysis indicated that in special cases, the proposed method outperformed deep learning models by restricting false-positive classifications.

References

  1. John R Anderson, C Franklin Boyle, Albert T Corbett, and Matthew W Lewis. 1990. Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial intelligence 42, 1 (1990), 7--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Robert K Atkinson, Sharon J Derry, Alexander Renkl, and Donald Wortham. 2000. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of educational research 70, 2 (2000), 181--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cory J Butz, Shan Hua, and R Brien Maguire. 2004. A web-based intelligent tutoring system for computer programming. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence. IEEE Computer Society, 159--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Anna Corazza, Valerio Maggio, and Giuseppe Scanniello. 2015. On the coherence between comments and implementations in source code. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on. IEEE, 76--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Barry Wellman. 1997. Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Commun. ACM 40, 9 (1997), 44--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Matthew J Howard, Samir Gupta, Lori Pollock, and K Vijay-Shanker. 2013. Automatically mining software-based, semantically-similar words from comment-code mappings. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, 377--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. I-Han Hsiao and Piyush Awasthi. 2015. Topic facet modeling: semantic visual analytics for online discussion forums. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge. ACM, 231--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. I-Han Hsiao and Yi-Ling Lin. 2017. Enriching programming content semantics: An evaluation of visual analytics approach. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017), 771--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wen Hua, Zhongyuan Wang, Haixun Wang, Kai Zheng, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2017. Understand short texts by harvesting and analyzing semantic knowledge. IEEE transactions on Knowledge and data Engineering 29, 3 (2017), 499--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 3146--3154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why students drop out CS1 course?. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Essi Lahtinen, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Acm Sigcse Bulletin 37, 3 (2005), 14--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yihan Lu and I-Han Hsiao. 2017. Personalized Information Seeking Assistant (PiSA): from programming information seeking to learning. Information Retrieval Journal 20, 5 (2017), 433--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Yihan Lu and I-Han Hsiao. 2018. Modeling Semantics between Programming Codes and Annotations. In Proceedings of the 29th on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, 101--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sze Yee Lye and Joyce Hwee Ling Koh. 2014. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014), 51--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Valerio Maggio. 2015. Comments and Implementations---A Public Benchmark. (2015). http://www2.unibas.it/gscanniello/coherenceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Chris Piech, Mehran Sahami, Daphne Koller, Steve Cooper, and Paulo Blikstein. 2012. Modeling how students learn to program. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jan L Plass, Roxana Moreno, and Roland Brünken. 2010. Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Shashank Singh. 2017. CodeReco-A Semantic Java Method Recommender. Ph.D. Dissertation. Arizona State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin Tan, Yuanyuan Zhou, and Yoann Padioleau. 2011. aComment: mining annotations from comments and code to detect interrupt related concurrency bugs. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2011 33rd International Conference on. IEEE, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK19: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
    March 2019
    565 pages
    ISBN:9781450362566
    DOI:10.1145/3303772

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 4 March 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader