Comments on "Researcher bias: The use of machine learning in software defect prediction"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shepperd et al. (2014) find that the reported performance of a defect prediction model shares a strong relationship with the group of researchers who construct the models. In this paper, we perform an alternative investigation of Shepperd et al. (2014)’s data. We observe that (a) researcher group shares a strong association with the dataset and metric families that are used to build a model; (b) the strong association among the explanatory variables introduces a large amount of interference when interpreting the impact of the researcher group on model performance; and (c) after mitigating the interference, we find that the researcher group has a smaller impact than the metric family. These observations lead us to conclude that the relationship between the researcher group and the performance of a defect prediction model may have more to do with the tendency of researchers to reuse experimental components (e.g., datasets and metrics). We recommend that researchers experiment with a broader selection of datasets and metrics to combat potential bias in their results.
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 | 0.044 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".