Abstract Context The identification of bugs within issues reported to an issue tracking system is crucial for triage. Machine learning models have shown promising results for this task. However, we have only limited knowledge of how such models identify bugs. Explainable AI methods like LIME and SHAP can be used to increase this knowledge. Objective We want to understand if explainable AI provides explanations that are reasonable to us as humans and align with our assumptions about the model’s decision-making. We also want to know if the quality of predictions is correlated with the quality of explanations. Methods We conduct a study where we rate LIME and SHAP explanations based on their quality of explaining the outcome of an issue type prediction model. For this, we rate the quality of the explanations, i.e., if they align with our expectations and help us understand the underlying machine learning model. Results We found that both LIME and SHAP give reasonable explanations and that correct predictions are well explained. Further, we found that SHAP outperforms LIME due to a lower ambiguity and a higher contextuality that can be attributed to the ability of the deep SHAP variant to capture sentence fragments. Conclusion We conclude that the model finds explainable signals for both bugs and non-bugs. Also, we recommend that research dealing with the quality of explanations for classification tasks reports and investigates rater agreement, since the rating of explanations is highly subjective.

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. 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.

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.

Context: Accurate data about bug fixes is important for different venues of research, e.g., program repair. While automated procedures are able to identify bug fixing activities, they cannot distinguish between the bug fix and other activities that are happening in parallel, e.g., refactorings or the addition of features. Objective: The creation of a large corpus of manually validated bug fixes and to gain insights into the limitations of manual validation. Method: We use a crowd working approach to manually validate bug fixing commit and analyze the limitations. Limitations: Insights limited to the Java programming language and possibly by the participants in the crowd working.