Utilizing Source Code Syntax Patterns to Detect Bug Inducing Commits using Machine Learning Models
December 07, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Software quality journal
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Md Nadim, Banani Roy
arXiv ID
2212.03399
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
5
Venue
Software quality journal
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Detecting Bug Inducing Commit (BIC) or Just in Time (JIT) defect prediction using Machine Learning (ML) based models requires tabulated feature values extracted from the source code or historical maintenance data of a software system. Existing studies have utilized meta-data from source code repositories (we named them GitHub Statistics or GS), n-gram-based source code text processing, and developer's information (e.g., the experience of a developer) as the feature values in ML-based bug detection models. However, these feature values do not represent the source code syntax styles or patterns that a developer might prefer over available valid alternatives provided by programming languages. This investigation proposed a method to extract features from its source code syntax patterns to represent software commits and investigate whether they are helpful in detecting bug proneness in software systems. We utilize six manually and two automatically labeled datasets from eight open-source software projects written in Java, C++, and Python programming languages. Our datasets contain 642 manually labeled and 4,014 automatically labeled buggy and non-buggy commits from six and two subject systems, respectively. The subject systems contain a diverse number of revisions, and they are from various application domains. Our investigation shows the inclusion of the proposed features increases the performance of detecting buggy and non-buggy software commits using five different machine learning classification models. Our proposed features also perform better in detecting buggy commits using the Deep Belief Network generated features and classification model. This investigation also implemented a state-of-the-art tool to compare the explainability of predicted buggy commits using our proposed and traditional features and found that our proposed features provide better reasoning about buggy.....
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted