Validating the Use of Topic Models for Software Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topics are collections of words that co-occur frequently in a text corpus. Topics have been found to be effective tools for describing the major themes spanning a corpus. Using such topics to describe the evolution of a software system's source code promises to be extremely useful for development tasks such as maintenance and re-engineering. However, no one has yet examined whether these automatically discovered topics accurately describe the evolution of source code, and thus it is not clear whether topic models are a suitable tool for this task. In this paper, we take a first step towards deter-mining the suitability of topic models in the analysis of software evolution by performing a qualitative case study on 12 releases of JHotDraw, a well studied and documented system. We define and compute various metrics on the identified topics and manually investigate how the metrics evolve over time. We find that topic evolutions are characterizable through spikes and drops in their metric values, and that the large majority of these spikes and drops are indeed caused by actual change activity in the source code. We are thus encouraged by the use of topic models as a tool for analyzing the evolution of software.
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 | 0.066 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".