Evolution of statistical analysis in empirical software engineering research: Current state and steps forward

Software engineering research is evolving and papers are increasingly based on empirical data from a multitude of sources, using statistical tests to determine if and to what degree empirical evidence supports their hypotheses. To investigate the practices and trends of statistical analysis in empirical software engineering (ESE), this paper presents a review of a large pool of papers from top-ranked software engineering journals. First, we manually reviewed 161 papers and in the second phase of our method, we conducted a more extensive semi-automatic classification of papers spanning the years 2001--2015 and 5,196 papers. Results from both review steps was used to: i) identify and analyze the predominant practices in ESE (e.g., using t-test or ANOVA), as well as relevant trends in usage of specific statistical methods (e.g., nonparametric tests and effect size measures) and, ii) develop a conceptual model for a statistical analysis workflow with suggestions on how to apply different statistical methods as well as guidelines to avoid pitfalls. Lastly, we confirm existing claims that current ESE practices lack a standard to report practical significance of results. We illustrate how practical significance can be discussed in terms of both the statistical analysis and in the practitioner's context.Comment: journal submission, 34 pages, 8 figure

The pp-Center Problem in Tree Networks Revisited

We present two improved algorithms for weighted discrete $p$-center problem for tree networks with $n$ vertices. One of our proposed algorithms runs in $O(n \log n + p \log^2 n \log(n/p))$ time. For all values of $p$, our algorithm thus runs as fast as or faster than the most efficient $O(n\log^2 n)$ time algorithm obtained by applying Cole's speed-up technique [cole1987] to the algorithm due to Megiddo and Tamir [megiddo1983], which has remained unchallenged for nearly 30 years. Our other algorithm, which is more practical, runs in $O(n \log n + p^2 \log^2(n/p))$ time, and when $p=O(\sqrt{n})$ it is faster than Megiddo and Tamir's $O(n \log^2n \log\log n)$ time algorithm [megiddo1983]

Neural Networks for Predicting Algorithm Runtime Distributions

Many state-of-the-art algorithms for solving hard combinatorial problems in artificial intelligence (AI) include elements of stochasticity that lead to high variations in runtime, even for a fixed problem instance. Knowledge about the resulting runtime distributions (RTDs) of algorithms on given problem instances can be exploited in various meta-algorithmic procedures, such as algorithm selection, portfolios, and randomized restarts. Previous work has shown that machine learning can be used to individually predict mean, median and variance of RTDs. To establish a new state-of-the-art in predicting RTDs, we demonstrate that the parameters of an RTD should be learned jointly and that neural networks can do this well by directly optimizing the likelihood of an RTD given runtime observations. In an empirical study involving five algorithms for SAT solving and AI planning, we show that neural networks predict the true RTDs of unseen instances better than previous methods, and can even do so when only few runtime observations are available per training instance

Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies

There is growing concern that poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting contribute to the frequent failure of pre-clinical animal studies to translate into treatments for human disease. In 2010, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were introduced to help improve reporting standards. They were published in PLOS Biology and endorsed by funding agencies and publishers and their journals, including PLOS, Nature research journals, and other top-tier journals. Yet our analysis of papers published in PLOS and Nature journals indicates that there has been very little improvement in reporting standards since then. This suggests that authors, referees, and editors generally are ignoring guidelines, and the editorial endorsement is yet to be effectively implemented