Alexander Bezzubov

Vitaliy Bibaev, Alexey Kalina, Vadim Lomshakov et al.

In this work, we propose an approach for collecting completion usage logs from the users in an IDE and using them to train a machine learning based model for ranking completion candidates. We developed a set of features that describe completion candidates and their context, and deployed their anonymized collection in the Early Access Program of IntelliJ-based IDEs. We used the logs to collect a dataset of code completions from users, and employed it to train a ranking CatBoost model. Then, we evaluated it in two settings: on a held-out set of the collected completions and in a separate A/B test on two different groups of users in the IDE. Our evaluation shows that using a simple ranking model trained on the past user behavior logs significantly improved code completion experience. Compared to the default heuristics-based ranking, our model demonstrated a decrease in the number of typing actions necessary to perform the completion in the IDE from 2.073 to 1.832. The approach adheres to privacy requirements and legal constraints, since it does not require collecting personal information, performing all the necessary anonymization on the client's side. Importantly, it can be improved continuously: implementing new features, collecting new data, and evaluating new models - this way, we have been using it in production since the end of 2020.

Evgeniy Glukhov, Michele Conti, Egor Bogomolov et al.

Reliable handling of code diffs is central to agents that edit and refactor repositories at scale. We introduce Diff-XYZ, a compact benchmark for code-diff understanding with three supervised tasks: apply (old code $+$ diff $\rightarrow$ new code), anti-apply (new code $-$ diff $\rightarrow$ old code), and diff generation (new code $-$ old code $\rightarrow$ diff). Instances in the benchmark are triples $\langle \textit{old code}, \textit{new code}, \textit{diff} \rangle$ drawn from real commits in CommitPackFT, paired with automatic metrics and a clear evaluation protocol. We use the benchmark to do a focused empirical study of the unified diff format and run a cross-format comparison of different diff representations. Our findings reveal that different formats should be used depending on the use case and model size. For example, representing diffs in search-replace format performs best for larger models across most tasks, while structured udiff variants offer similar but slightly weaker performance. In contrast, smaller open models benefit little from any formatting choice. The Diff-XYZ benchmark is a reusable foundation for assessing and improving diff handling in LLMs that can aid future development of diff formats and models editing code. The dataset is published on HuggingFace Hub: https://huggingface.co/datasets/JetBrains-Research/diff-xyz.

Dmitry Ustalov, Egor Bogomolov, Alexander Bezzubov et al.

The rapid advancement of workflows and methods for software engineering using AI emphasizes the need for a systematic evaluation and analysis of their ability to leverage information from entire projects, particularly in large code bases. In this challenge on optimization of context collection for code completion, organized by JetBrains in collaboration with Mistral AI as part of the ASE 2025 conference, participants developed efficient mechanisms for collecting context from source code repositories to improve fill-in-the-middle code completions for Python and Kotlin. We constructed a large dataset of real-world code in these two programming languages using permissively licensed open-source projects. The submissions were evaluated based on their ability to maximize completion quality for multiple state-of-the-art neural models using the chrF metric. During the public phase of the competition, nineteen teams submitted solutions to the Python track and eight teams submitted solutions to the Kotlin track. In the private phase, six teams competed, of which five submitted papers to the workshop.

Petr Tsvetkov, Aleksandra Eliseeva, Danny Dig et al.

When a Commit Message Generation (CMG) system is integrated into the IDEs and other products at JetBrains, we perform online evaluation based on user acceptance of the generated messages. However, performing online experiments with every change to a CMG system is troublesome, as each iteration affects users and requires time to collect enough statistics. On the other hand, offline evaluation, a prevalent approach in the research literature, facilitates fast experiments but employs automatic metrics that are not guaranteed to represent the preferences of real users. In this work, we describe a novel way we employed to deal with this problem at JetBrains, by leveraging an online metric - the number of edits users introduce before committing the generated messages to the VCS - to select metrics for offline experiments. To support this new type of evaluation, we develop a novel markup collection tool mimicking the real workflow with a CMG system, collect a dataset with 57 pairs consisting of commit messages generated by GPT-4 and their counterparts edited by human experts, and design and verify a way to synthetically extend such a dataset. Then, we use the final dataset of 656 pairs to study how the widely used similarity metrics correlate with the online metric reflecting the real users' experience. Our results indicate that edit distance exhibits the highest correlation with the online metric, whereas commonly used similarity metrics such as BLEU and METEOR demonstrate low correlation. This contradicts the previous studies on similarity metrics for CMG, suggesting that user interactions with a CMG system in real-world settings differ significantly from the responses by human labelers within controlled environments. We release all the code and the dataset to support future research in the field: https://jb.gg/cmg-evaluation.