Bibliographic record
Abstract
As software systems play an increasingly important role in our lives, their complexity continues to increase. The increased complexity of software systems makes the assurance of their quality very difficult. Therefore, a significant amount of recent research focuses on the prioritization of software quality assurance efforts. One line of work that has been receiving an increasing amount of attention for over 40 years is software defect prediction, where predictions are made to determine where future defects might appear. Since then, there have been many studies and many accomplishments in the area of software defect prediction. At the same time, there remain many challenges that face that field of software defect prediction. The paper aims to accomplish four things. First, we provide a brief overview of software defect prediction and its various components. Second, we revisit the challenges of software prediction models as they were seen in the year 2000, in order to reflect on our accomplishments since then. Third, we highlight our accomplishments and current trends, as well as, discuss the game changers that had a significant impact on software defect prediction. Fourth, we highlight some key challenges that lie ahead in the near (and not so near) future in order for us as a research community to tackle these future challenges.
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 | 0.037 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".