Explaining software defects using topic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have proposed various metrics based on measurable aspects of the source code entities (e.g., methods, classes, files, or modules) and the social structure of a software project in an effort to explain the relationships between software development and software defects. However, these metrics largely ignore the actual functionality, i.e., the conceptual concerns, of a software system, which are the main technical concepts that reflect the business logic or domain of the system. For instance, while lines of code may be a good general measure for defects, a large entity responsible for simple I/O tasks is likely to have fewer defects than a small entity responsible for complicated compiler implementation details. In this paper, we study the effect of conceptual concerns on code quality. We use a statistical topic modeling technique to approximate software concerns as topics; we then propose various metrics on these topics to help explain the defect-proneness (i.e., quality) of the entities. Paramount to our proposed metrics is that they take into account the defect history of each topic. Case studies on multiple versions of Mozilla Firefox, Eclipse, and Mylyn show that (i) some topics are much more defect-prone than others, (ii) defect-prone topics tend to remain so over time, and (iii) defect-prone topics provide additional explanatory power for code quality over existing structural and historical metrics.
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 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".