Studying the Impact of Social Structures on Software Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correcting software defects accounts for a significant amount of resources such as time, money and personnel. To be able to focus testing efforts where needed the most, researchers have studied statistical models to predict in which parts of a software future defects are likely to occur. By studying the mathematical relations between predictor variables used in these models, researchers can form an increased understanding of the important connections between development activities and software quality. Predictor variables used in past top-performing models are largely based on file-oriented measures, such as source code and churn metrics. However, source code is the end product of numerous interlaced and collaborative activities carried out by developers. Traces of such activities can be found in the repositories used to manage development efforts. In this paper, we investigate statistical models, to study the impact of social structures between developers and end-users on software quality. These models use predictor variables based on social information mined from the issue tracking and version control repositories of a large open-source software project. The results of our case study are promising and indicate that statistical models based on social information have a similar degree of explanatory power as traditional models. Furthermore, our findings suggest that social information does not substitute, but rather augments traditional product and process-based metrics used in defect prediction models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".