Does chronology matter in JIT defect prediction? A Partial Replication Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just-In-Time (JIT) models detect the fix-inducing changes (or defect-inducing changes). These models are designed based on the assumption that past code change properties are similar to future ones. However, as the system evolves, the expertise of developers and/or the complexity of the system also changes. In this work, we aim to investigate the effect of code change properties on JIT models over time. We also study the impact of using recent data as well as all available data on the performance of JIT models. Further, we analyze the effect of weighted sampling on the performance of fix-inducing properties of JIT models. For this purpose, we used datasets from Eclipse JDT, Mozilla, Eclipse Platform, and PostgreSQL. We used five families of change-code properties such as size, diffusion, history, experience, and purpose. We used Random Forest to train and test the JIT model and Brier Score and the area under the ROC curve for performance measurement. Our paper suggests that the predictive power of JIT models does not change over time. Furthermore, we observed that the chronology of data in JIT defect prediction models can be discarded by considering all the available data. On the other hand, the importance score of families of code change properties is found to oscillate over time. To mitigate the impact of the evolution of code change properties, it is recommended to use a weighted sampling approach in which more emphasis is placed upon the changes occurring closer to the current time. Moreover, since properties such as "Expertise of the Developer" and "Size" evolve with time, the models obtained from old data may exhibit different characteristics compared to those employing the newer dataset. Hence, practitioners should constantly retrain JIT models to include fresh data.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.069 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".