A study of quality prediction for large-scale open source software projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open source software (OSS) has seen remarkable progress in recent years. Moreover, OSS usage in corporate information systems has been increasing steadily; consequently, the overall impact of OSS on the society is increasing as well. While product quality of enterprise software is assured by the provider, the deliverables of an OSS are developed by the OSS developer community; therefore, their quality is not guaranteed. Thus, the objective of this study is to build an artificial-intelligence-based quality prediction model that corporate businesses could use for decision-making to determine whether a desired OSS should be adopted. We define the quality of an OSS as “the resolution rate of issues processed by OSS developers as well as the promptness and continuity of doing so.” We selected 44 large-scale OSS projects from GitHub for our quality analysis. First, we investigated the monthly changes in the status of issue creation and resolution for each project. It was found that there are three different patterns in the increase of issue creation, and three patterns in the relationship between the increase in issue creation and that of resolution. It was confirmed that there are multiple cases of each pattern that affect the final resolution rate. Next, we investigated the correlation between the final resolution rate and that for a relevant number of months after issue creation. We deduced that the correlation coefficient even between the resolution rate in the first month and the final rate exceeded 0.5. Based on these analysis results, we conclude that the issue resolution rate in the first month once an issue is created is applicable as knowledge for knowledge-based AI systems that can be used to assist in decision-making regarding OSS adoption in business projects.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".