[Journal First] Are Fix-Inducing Changes a Moving Target?: A Longitudinal Case Study of Just-in-Time Defect Prediction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just-In-Time (JIT) models identify fix-inducing code changes. JIT models are trained using techniques that assume that past fix-inducing changes are similar to future ones. However, this assumption may not hold, e.g., as system complexity tends to accrue, expertise may become more important as systems age. In this paper, we study JIT models as systems evolve. Through a longitudinal case study of 37,524 changes from the rapidly evolving Qt and OpenStack systems, we find that fluctuations in the properties of fix-inducing changes can impact the performance and interpretation of JIT models. More specifically: (a) the discriminatory power (AUC) and calibration (Brier) scores of JIT models drop considerably one year after being trained; (b) the role that code change properties (e.g., Size, Experience) play within JIT models fluctuates over time; and (c) those fluctuations yield over- and underestimates of the future impact of code change properties on the likelihood of inducing fixes. To avoid erroneous or misleading predictions, JIT models should be retrained using recently recorded data (within three months). Moreover, quality improvement plans should be informed by JIT models that are trained using six months (or more) of historical data, since they are more resilient to period-specific fluctuations in the importance of code change properties.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it