> Details

Herbold, Steffen; Trautsch, Alexander; Trautsch, Fabian; Ledel, Benjamin

Problems with SZZ and features: An empirical study of the state of practice of defect prediction data collection

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Problems with SZZ and features: An empirical study of the state of practice of defect prediction data collection
  • Contributor: Herbold, Steffen; Trautsch, Alexander; Trautsch, Fabian; Ledel, Benjamin
  • Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022
  • Published in: Empirical Software Engineering, 27 (2022) 2
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10664-021-10092-4
  • ISSN: 1382-3256; 1573-7616
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: Abstract Context The SZZ algorithm is the de facto standard for labeling bug fixing commits and finding inducing changes for defect prediction data. Recent research uncovered potential problems in different parts of the SZZ algorithm. Most defect prediction data sets provide only static code metrics as features, while research indicates that other features are also important. Objective We provide an empirical analysis of the defect labels created with the SZZ algorithm and the impact of commonly used features on results. Method We used a combination of manual validation and adopted or improved heuristics for the collection of defect data. We conducted an empirical study on 398 releases of 38 Apache projects. Results We found that only half of the bug fixing commits determined by SZZ are actually bug fixing. If a six-month time frame is used in combination with SZZ to determine which bugs affect a release, one file is incorrectly labeled as defective for every file that is correctly labeled as defective. In addition, two defective files are missed. We also explored the impact of the relatively small set of features that are available in most defect prediction data sets, as there are multiple publications that indicate that, e.g., churn related features are important for defect prediction. We found that the difference of using more features is not significant. Conclusion Problems with inaccurate defect labels are a severe threat to the validity of the state of the art of defect prediction. Small feature sets seem to be a less severe threat.