単語の類似性についての議論、AST構造情報は既存研究

[masuhar]

(Moreover, the use case shown in Figure 8 gave me a hint that
denotes the characteristics of two field “pageX” and “pageY”.
However, I do not figure out something behind the idea of dealing
with these types distinctively.)

• Why do the authors consider information on AST tokens into the construction of the LSTM models is used in order to predict a next AST token?
• What is the similarity of tokens in the context in which code completion in conventional LSTM models and the proposed new one?
• Is it quite hard to discuss this on deep-leaning based code completion?
• Additionally, the paper should present a motivation the authors have and an example complementing it in an early section (before describing the details of the models).

[masuhar]

• AST構造を符号化するのは既存研究だと伝わっていない
• 既存研究で異なり単語の扱いがどうなっているかが伝わっていない
• [6] Liu 2016 は one-hot encoding で、それを変更したのだと言おう
• Section 1にここでのcode completionの例を示そう
• ポイントとして、文法構造があるときに、その構造を意識したcompletionができるか
• また、類似性を使ったcompletionができるかというのを例で示そう

[masuhar]

TabNineの話