Information theoretic evaluation of change prediction models for large-scale software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the data extracted from several open source software repositories. We observe that the change data follows a Zipf distribution. Based on the extracted data, we then develop three probabilistic models to predict which files will have changes or bugs. The first model is Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), which simply counts the number of events, i.e., changes or bugs, that happen to each file and normalizes the counts to compute a probability distribution. The second model is Reflexive Exponential Decay (RED) in which we postulate that the predictive rate of modification in a file is incremented by any modification to that file and decays exponentially. The third model is called RED-Co-Change. With each modification to a given file, the RED-Co-Change model not only increments its predictive rate, but also increments the rate for other files that are related to the given file through previous co-changes. We then present an information-theoretic approach to evaluate the performance of different prediction models. In this approach, the closeness of model distribution to the actual unknown probability distribution of the system is measured using cross entropy. We evaluate our prediction models empirically using the proposed information-theoretic approach for six large open source systems. Based on this evaluation, we observe that of our three prediction models, the RED-Co-Change model predicts the distribution that is closest to the actual distribution for all the studied systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".