A Tool for Rejuvenating Feature Logging Levels via Git Histories and Degree of Interest
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
Logging is a significant programming practice. Due to the highly transactional nature of modern software applications, massive amount of logs are generated every day, which may overwhelm developers. Logging information overload can be dangerous to software applications. Using log levels, developers can print the useful information while hiding the verbose logs during software runtime. As software evolves, the log levels of logging statements associated with the surrounding software feature implementation may also need to be altered. Maintaining log levels necessitates a significant amount of manual effort. In this paper, we demonstrate an automated approach that can rejuvenate feature log levels by matching the interest level of developers in the surrounding features. The approach is implemented as an open-source Eclipse plugin, using two external plug-ins (JGit and Mylyn). It was tested on 18 open-source Java projects consisting of ~3 million lines of code and ~4K log statements. Our tool successfully analyzes 99.22% of logging statements, increases log level distributions by ~ 20%, and increases the focus of logs in bug fix contexts ~83% of the time. For further details, interested readers can watch our demonstration video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIULoAXoDv4).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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