On the value of instance selection for bug resolution prediction performance
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
Abstract Software maintenance is a challenging and laborious software management activity, especially for open‐source software. The bugs reports of such software allow tracking maintenance activities and were used in several empirical studies to better predict the bug resolution effort. These reports are known for their large size and contain nonrelevant instances that need to be preprocessed to be suitable for use. To this end, instance selection (IS) has been proposed in the literature as a way to reduce the size of the datasets, while keeping the relevant instances. The objective of this study is to perform an empirical study that investigates the impact of data preprocessing through IS on the performance of bug resolution prediction classifiers. To deal with this, four IS algorithms, namely, edited nearest neighbor (ENN), repeated ENN, all‐k nearest neighbors, and model class selection, are applied on five large datasets, together with five machine learning techniques. Overall, 125 experiments were performed and compared. The findings of this study highlight the positive impact of IS in providing better estimates for bug resolution prediction classifiers, in particular using repeated ENN and ENN algorithms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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