Predicting Bugs Using Antipatterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bug prediction models are often used to help allocate software quality assurance efforts. Software metrics (e.g., process metrics and product metrics) are at the heart of bug prediction models. However, some of these metrics like churn are not actionable, on the contrary, antipatterns which refer to specific design and implementation styles can tell the developers whether a design choice is "poor" or not. Poor designs can be fixed by refactoring. Therefore in this paper, we explore the use of antipatterns for bug prediction, and strive to improve the accuracy of bug prediction models by proposing various metrics based on antipatterns. An additional feature to our proposed metrics is that they take into account the history of antipatterns in files from their inception into the system. Through a case study on multiple versions of Eclipse and ArgoUML, we observe that (i) files participating in antipatterns have higher bug density than other files, (ii) our proposed antipattern based metrics can provide additional explanatory power over traditional metrics, and (iii) improve the F-measure of cross-system bug prediction models by 12.5% in average. Managers and quality assurance personnel can use our proposed metrics to better improve their bug prediction models and better focus testing activities and the allocation of support resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".