  A large-scale evaluation for current naming approaches substantiates that
such approaches are accurate. However, it is less known about which categories
of method names work well via such naming approaches and how's the performance
of naming approaches. To point out the superiority of the current naming
approach, in this paper, we conduct an empirical study on such approaches in a
new dataset. Moreover, we analyze the successful naming approaches above and
find that: (1) around 60% of the accepted recommendation names are made on
prefixes within get, set, is, and test. (2) A large portion (19.3%) of method
names successfully recommended could be derived from the given method bodies.
The comparisons also demonstrate the superior performance of the empirical
study.
