Using fuzzy code search to link code fragments in discussions to source code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When discussing software, practitioners often reference parts of the project's source code. Such references have different motivations, such as mentoring and guiding less experienced developers, pointing out code that needs changes, or proposing possible strategies for the implementation of future changes. The fact that particular parts of a source code are being discussed makes these parts of the software special. Knowing which code is being talked about the most can not only help practitioners to guide important software engineering and maintenance activities, but also act as a high-level documentation of development activities for managers. In this paper, we use clone- detection as specific instance of a code search based approach for establishing links between code fragments that are discussed by developers and the actual source code of a project. Through a case study on the Eclipse project we explore the traceability links established through this approach, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and compare fuzzy code search based traceability linking to classical approaches, in particular change log analysis and information retrieval. We demonstrate a sample application of code search based traceability links by visualizing those parts of the project that are most discussed in issue reports with a Treemap visualization. The results of our case study show that the traceability links established through fuzzy code search- based traceability linking are conceptually different than classical approaches based on change log analysis or information retrieval.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".