Online defect prediction for imbalanced data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—Many defect prediction techniques are proposed to improve software reliability. Change classification predicts defects at the change level, where a change is the modifications to one file in a commit. In this paper, we conduct the first study of applying change classification in practice. We identify two issues in the prediction process, both of which contribute to the low prediction performance. First, the data are imbalanced—there are much fewer buggy changes than clean changes. Second, the commonly used cross-validation approach is inappropriate for evaluating the performance of change classi-fication. To address these challenges, we apply and adapt online change classification, resampling, and updatable classification techniques to improve the classification performance. We perform the improved change classification techniques on one proprietary and six open source projects. Our results show that these techniques improve the precision of change classification by 12.2-89.5 % or 6.4–34.8 percentage points (pp.) on the seven projects. In addition, we integrate change classification in the development process of the proprietary project. We have learned the following lessons: 1) new solutions are needed to convince developers to use and believe prediction results, and prediction results need to be actionable, 2) new and improved classification algorithms are needed to explain the prediction results, and insensible and unactionable explanations need to be filtered or refined, and 3) new techniques are needed to improve the relatively low precision. I.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".