[Journal First] Are Fix-Inducing Changes a Moving Target?: A Longitudinal Case Study of Just-in-Time Defect Prediction
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.
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 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".