Verifier Warnings Do Not Improve Comprehensibility Prediction
Nadeeshan De Silva, Martin Kellogg, Oscar Chaparro

TL;DR
This study investigates whether verifier warnings improve machine learning models' ability to predict code comprehensibility, finding that warnings do not significantly enhance performance.
Contribution
The paper empirically tests the utility of verifier warning counts as features in ML models for code comprehensibility prediction, showing limited benefit.
Findings
Verifier warning sum correlates with comprehensibility but offers limited predictive power.
Adding verifier warnings does not significantly improve ML model performance.
Syntactic and developer features alone are as effective as combined features including warnings.
Abstract
Proponents of software verification suggest that code simplicity is linked to the effort to verify code, hypothesizing that formal verifiers produce fewer false positive warnings and require less manual intervention when analyzing simpler code. A recent meta-analysis study found empirical support for this hypothesis: a small correlation between the sum of verifier warnings and human-derived code comprehensibility metrics. Based on this finding, we conjectured that using the sum of verifier tool (verifier) warnings to represent program semantic information as an input feature to machine learning (ML) models for code comprehensibility prediction can enhance their performance, when combined with traditional syntactic and developer features. To test this conjecture, we performed a control-treatment experiment incorporating the verifier warning sum feature into machine learning models from…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
