An Empirical Study of Token-based Micro Commits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In software development, developers frequently apply maintenance activities to the source code that change a few lines by a single commit. A good understanding of the characteristics of such small changes can support quality assurance approaches (e.g., automated program repair), as it is likely that small changes are addressing deficiencies in other changes; thus, understanding the reasons for creating small changes can help understand the types of errors introduced. Eventually, these reasons and the types of errors can be used to enhance quality assurance approaches for improving code quality. While prior studies used code churns to characterize and investigate the small changes, such a definition has a critical limitation. Specifically, it loses the information of changed tokens in a line. For example, this definition fails to distinguish the following two one-line changes: (1) changing a string literal to fix a displayed message and (2) changing a function call and adding a new parameter. These are definitely maintenance activities, but we deduce that researchers and practitioners are interested in supporting the latter change. To address this limitation, in this paper, we define micro commits, a type of small change based on changed tokens. Our goal is to quantify small changes using changed tokens. Changed tokens allow us to identify small changes more precisely. In fact, this token-level definition can distinguish the above example. We investigate defined micro commits in four OSS projects and understand their characteristics as the first empirical study on token-based micro commits. We find that micro commits mainly replace a single name or literal token, and micro commits are more likely used to fix bugs. Additionally, we propose the use of token-based information to support software engineering approaches in which very small changes significantly affect their effectiveness.
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 | 0.013 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".