Search

Transformers are the current state-of-the-art of natural language processing in many domains and are using traction within software engineering research as well. Such models are pre-trained on large amounts of data, usually from the general domain. However, we only have a limited understanding regarding the validity of transformers within the software engineering domain, i.e., how good such models are at understanding words and sentences within a software engineering context and how this improves the state-of-the-art. Within this article, we shed light on this complex, but crucial issue. We compare BERT transformer models trained with software engineering data with transformers based on general domain data in multiple dimensions: their vocabulary, their ability to understand which words are missing, and their performance in classification tasks. Our results show that for tasks that require understanding of the software engineering context, pre-training with software engineering data is valuable, while general domain models are sufficient for general language understanding, also within the software engineering domain., Comment: Review status: submitted

Context: Performance metrics are a core component of the evaluation of any machine learning model and used to compare models and estimate their usefulness. Recent work started to question the validity of many performance metrics for this purpose in the context of software defect prediction. Objective: Within this study, we explore the relationship between performance metrics and the cost saving potential of defect prediction models. We study whether performance metrics are suitable proxies to evaluate the cost saving capabilities and derive a theory for the relationship between performance metrics and cost saving potential. Methods: We measure performance metrics and cost saving potential in defect prediction experiments. We use a multinomial logit model, decision, and random forest to model the relationship between the metrics and the cost savings. Results: We could not find a stable relationship between cost savings and performance metrics. We attribute the lack of the relationship to the inability of performance metrics to account for the property that a small proportion of very large software artifacts are the main driver of the costs. Conclusion: Any defect prediction study interested in finding the best prediction model, must consider cost savings directly, because no reasonable claims regarding the economic benefits of defect prediction can be made otherwise., Comment: Under review

Developer social networks (DSNs) are a tool for the analysis of community structures and collaborations between developers in software projects and software ecosystems. Within this paper, we present the results of a systematic mapping study on the use of DSNs in software engineering research. We identified 255 primary studies on DSNs. We mapped the primary studies to research directions, collected information about the data sources and the size of the studies, and conducted a bibliometric assessment. We found that nearly half of the research investigates the structure of developer communities. Other frequent topics are prediction systems build using DSNs, collaboration behavior between developers, and the roles of developers. Moreover, we determined that many publications use a small sample size regarding the number of projects, which could be problematic for the external validity of the research. Our study uncovered several open issues in the state of the art, e.g., studying inter-company collaborations, using multiple information sources for DSN research, as well as general lack of reporting guidelines or replication studies., Comment: Accepted at the Journal of Systems and Software

Unfortunately, the article "A Comparative Study to Benchmark Cross-project Defect Prediction Approaches" has a problem in the statistical analysis which was pointed out almost immediately after the pre-print of the article appeared online. While the problem does not negate the contribution of the the article and all key findings remain the same, it does alter some rankings of approaches used in the study. Within this correction, we will explain the problem, how we resolved it, and present the updated results.