RPerf: Mining User Reviews Using Topic Modeling to Assist Performance Testing: An Industrial Experience Report
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
Software performance affects the user-perceived quality of software. Therefore, it is important to analyze the performance issues that users are concerned with. In this paper, we document our experience working with our industry partner on analyzing user reviews to identify and analyze performance issues users are concerned with. In particular, we designed an approach, RPerf, which automatically analyzes unstructured user reviews and generates a performance analysis report that can assist performance engineers with performance testing. In particular, RPerf uses BERTopic to uncover performance-related topics in user reviews. RPerf then maps the derived topics to performance KPIs (key performance indicators) such as response time. Such performance KPIs better help performance test design and allocate performance testing resources. Finally, RPerf extracts user usage scenarios from user reviews to help identify the causes. Through a manual evaluation, we find that RPerf achieves a high accuracy (over 93%) in identifying the performance-related topics and performance KPIs from user reviews. RPerf can also accurately extract usage scenarios in over 80% of user reviews. We discuss the performance analysis report that is generated based on RPerf. We believe that our findings can assist practitioners with analyzing performance-related user reviews and inspire future research on user review analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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