Fuzzy case‐based‐reasoning‐based imputation for incomplete data in software engineering repositories
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
Abstract Missing data is a serious issue in software engineering because it can lead to information loss and bias in data analysis. Several imputation techniques have been proposed to deal with both numerical and categorical missing data. However, most of those techniques used is simple reuse techniques originally designed for numerical data, which is a problem when the missing data are related to categorical attributes. This paper aims (a) to propose a new fuzzy case‐based reasoning (CBR) imputation technique designed for both numerical and categorical data and (b) to evaluate and compare the performance of the proposed technique with the k ‐nearest neighbor (KNN) imputation technique in terms of error and accuracy under different missing data percentages and missingness mechanisms in four software engineering data sets. The results suggest that the proposed fuzzy CBR technique outperformed KNN in terms of imputation error and accuracy regardless of the missing data percentage, missingness mechanism, and data set used. Moreover, we found that the missingness mechanism has an important impact on the performance of both techniques. The results are encouraging in the sense that using an imputation technique designed for both categorical and numerical data is better than reusing methods originally designed for numerical 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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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