In recent years, research in the domain of source code summarization has adopted data-driven techniques pioneered in machine translation (MT). Automatic evaluation metrics such as BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE, are fundamental to the evaluation of MT systems and have been adopted as proxies of human evaluation in the code summarization domain. However, the extent to which automatic metrics agree with the gold standard of human evaluation has not been evaluated on code summarization tasks. Despite this, marginal improvements in metric scores are often used to discriminate between the performance of competing summarization models.
In this paper, we present a critical exploration of the applicability and interpretation of automatic metrics as evaluation techniques for code summarization tasks. We conduct an empirical study with 226 human annotators to assess the degree to which automatic metrics reflect human evaluation. Results indicate that metric improvements of less than 2 points do not guarantee systematic improvements in summarization quality, and are unreliable as proxies of human evaluation.
When the difference between metric scores for two summarization approaches increases but remains within 5 points, some metrics such as METEOR and chrF become highly reliable proxies, whereas others, such as corpus BLEU, remain unreliable. Based on these findings, we make several recommendations for the use of automatic metrics to discriminate model performance in code summarization.