MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988252511 · doi:10.1109/saner.2015.7081873

TextRank based search term identification for software change tasks

2015· preprint· en· W1988252511 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Chanchal K. Roy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)SoftwareTerm (time)Software maintenanceIdentification (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Software evolutionSoftware developmentRecallPrecision and recallSoftware systemCode (set theory)Program comprehensionArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalSoftware constructionProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During maintenance, software developers deal with a number of software change requests. Each of those requests is generally written using natural language texts, and it involves one or more domain related concepts. A developer needs to map those concepts to exact source code locations within the project in order to implement the requested change. This mapping generally starts with a search within the project that requires one or more suitable search terms. Studies suggest that the developers often perform poorly in coming up with good search terms for a change task. In this paper, we propose and evaluate a novel TextRank-based technique that automatically identifies and suggests search terms for a software change task by analyzing its task description. Experiments with 349 change tasks from two subject systems and comparison with one of the latest and closely related state-of-the-art approaches show that our technique is highly promising in terms of suggestion accuracy, mean average precision and recall.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207