On the Evaluation of NLP-based Models for Software Engineering

NLP-based models have been increasingly incorporated to address SE problems. These models are either employed in the SE domain with little to no change, or they are greatly tailored to source code and its unique characteristics. Many of these approaches are considered to be outperforming or complementing existing solutions. However, an important question arises here: "Are these models evaluated fairly and consistently in the SE community?". To answer this question, we reviewed how NLP-based models for SE problems are being evaluated by researchers. The findings indicate that currently there is no consistent and widely-accepted protocol for the evaluation of these models. While different aspects of the same task are being assessed in different studies, metrics are defined based on custom choices, rather than a system, and finally, answers are collected and interpreted case by case. Consequently, there is a dire need to provide a methodological way of evaluating NLP-based models to have a consistent assessment and preserve the possibility of fair and efficient comparison.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 1sth International Workshop on Natural Language-based Software Engineering (NLBSE), co-located with ICSE, 202

A Fine-grained Data Set and Analysis of Tangling in Bug Fixing Commits

Context: Tangled commits are changes to software that address multiple concerns at once. For researchers interested in bugs, tangled commits mean that they actually study not only bugs, but also other concerns irrelevant for the study of bugs. Objective: We want to improve our understanding of the prevalence of tangling and the types of changes that are tangled within bug fixing commits. Methods: We use a crowd sourcing approach for manual labeling to validate which changes contribute to bug fixes for each line in bug fixing commits. Each line is labeled by four participants. If at least three participants agree on the same label, we have consensus. Results: We estimate that between 17% and 32% of all changes in bug fixing commits modify the source code to fix the underlying problem. However, when we only consider changes to the production code files this ratio increases to 66% to 87%. We find that about 11% of lines are hard to label leading to active disagreements between participants. Due to confirmed tangling and the uncertainty in our data, we estimate that 3% to 47% of data is noisy without manual untangling, depending on the use case. Conclusion: Tangled commits have a high prevalence in bug fixes and can lead to a large amount of noise in the data. Prior research indicates that this noise may alter results. As researchers, we should be skeptics and assume that unvalidated data is likely very noisy, until proven otherwise.Comment: Status: Accepted at Empirical Software Engineerin

A fine-grained data set and analysis of tangling in bug fixing commits

Abstract Context: Tangled commits are changes to software that address multiple concerns at once. For researchers interested in bugs, tangled commits mean that they actually study not only bugs, but also other concerns irrelevant for the study of bugs. Objectives: We want to improve our understanding of the prevalence of tangling and the types of changes that are tangled within bug fixing commits. Methods: We use a crowd sourcing approach for manual labeling to validate which changes contribute to bug fixes for each line in bug fixing commits. Each line is labeled by four participants. If at least three participants agree on the same label, we have consensus. Results: We estimate that between 17% and 32% of all changes in bug fixing commits modify the source code to fix the underlying problem. However, when we only consider changes to the production code files this ratio increases to 66% to 87%. We find that about 11% of lines are hard to label leading to active disagreements between participants. Due to confirmed tangling and the uncertainty in our data, we estimate that 3% to 47% of data is noisy without manual untangling, depending on the use case. Conclusions: Tangled commits have a high prevalence in bug fixes and can lead to a large amount of noise in the data. Prior research indicates that this noise may alter results. As researchers, we should be skeptics and assume that unvalidated data is likely very noisy, until proven otherwise