Commenting Higher-level Code Unit: Full Code, Reduced Code, or Hierarchical Code Summarization

Commenting code is a crucial activity in software development, as it aids in facilitating future maintenance and updates. To enhance the efficiency of writing comments and reduce developers' workload, researchers has proposed various automated code summarization (ACS) techniques to automatically generate comments/summaries for given code units. However, these ACS techniques primarily focus on generating summaries for code units at the method level. There is a significant lack of research on summarizing higher-level code units, such as file-level and module-level code units, despite the fact that summaries of these higher-level code units are highly useful for quickly gaining a macro-level understanding of software components and architecture. To fill this gap, in this paper, we conduct a systematic study on how to use LLMs for commenting higher-level code units, including file level and module level. These higher-level units are significantly larger than method-level ones, which poses challenges in handling long code inputs within LLM constraints and maintaining efficiency. To address these issues, we explore various summarization strategies for ACS of higher-level code units, which can be divided into three types: full code summarization, reduced code summarization, and hierarchical code summarization. The experimental results suggest that for summarizing file-level code units, using the full code is the most effective approach, with reduced code serving as a cost-efficient alternative. However, for summarizing module-level code units, hierarchical code summarization becomes the most promising strategy. In addition, inspired by the research on method-level ACS, we also investigate using the LLM as an evaluator to evaluate the quality of summaries of higher-level code units. The experimental results demonstrate that the LLM's evaluation results strongly correlate with human evaluations.

Counterfactual Uncertainty Quantification of Factual Estimand of Efficacy from Before-and-After Treatment Repeated Measures Randomized Controlled Trials

The ideal estimand for comparing a new treatment $Rx$ with a control $C$ is the $\textit{counterfactual}$ efficacy $Rx:C$, the expected differential outcome between $Rx$ and $C$ if each patient were given $\textit{both}$. While counterfactual $\textit{point estimation}$ from $\textit{factual}$ Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) has been available, this article shows $\textit{counterfactual}$ uncertainty quantification (CUQ), quantifying uncertainty for factual point estimates but in a counterfactual setting, is surprisingly achievable. We achieve CUQ whose variability is typically smaller than factual UQ, by creating a new statistical modeling principle called ETZ which is applicable to RCTs with $\textit{Before-and-After}$ treatment Repeated Measures, common in many therapeutic areas. We urge caution when estimate of the unobservable true condition of a patient before treatment has measurement error, because that violation of standard regression assumption can cause attenuation in estimating treatment effects. Fortunately, we prove that, for traditional medicine in general, and for targeted therapy with efficacy defined as averaged over the population, counterfactual point estimation is unbiased. However, for targeted therapy, both Real Human and Digital Twins approaches should respect this limitation, lest predicted treatment effect in $\textit{subgroups}$ will have bias.