Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Christophe Rezk

dblp:290/6852 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-9541-2849ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 77% Debugging and program repair · 23%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
defect prediction
0.612022
The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › defect prediction
just-in-time defect prediction
0.612022
The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.612022
The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022
Debugging and program repair › regression debugging › failure-inducing change identification
SZZ algorithm
0.612022
The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
version history analysis
0.212022
The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

qualitative analysis · 0.6empirical study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 The Ghost Commit Problem When Identifying Fix-Inducing Changes: An Empirical Study of Apache Projects
abstract
The SZZ approach for identifying fix-inducing changes traces backwards from a commit that fixes a defect to those commits that are implicated in the fix. This approach is at the heart of studies of characteristics of fix-inducing changes, as well as the popular Just-in-Time (JIT) variant of defect prediction. However, some types of commits are invisible to the SZZ approach. We refer to these invisible commits as “Ghost Commits.” In this paper, we set out to define, quantify, characterize, and mitigate ghost commits that impact the SZZ algorithm during its mapping (i.e., linking defect-fixing commits to those commits that are implicated by the fix) and filtering phases (i.e., removing improbable fix-inducing commits from the set of implicated commits). We mine the version control repositories of 14 open source Apache projects for instances of mapping-phase and filtering-phase ghost commits. We find that (1) 5.66–11.72 percent of defect-fixing commits of defect-fixing commits only add lines, and thus, cannot be mapped back to implicated commits; (2) 1.05–4.60 percent of the studied commits only remove lines, and thus, cannot be implicated in future fixes; and (3) that no implicated commits survive the filtering process of 0.35–14.49 percent defect-fixing commits. Qualitative analysis of ghost commits reveals that 46.5 percent of 142 addition-only defect-fixing commits add checks (e.g., null-ness or emptiness checks), while 39.7 percent of 307 removal-only commits clean up (unused) code. Our results suggest that the next generation of SZZ improvements should be language-aware to connect ghost commits to implicated and defect-fixing commits. Based on our observations, we discuss promising directions for mitigation strategies to address each type of ghost commit. Moreover, we implement mitigation strategies for addition-only commits and evaluate those strategies with respect to a baseline approach. The results indicate that our strategies achieve a precision of 0.753, improving the precision of implicated commits by 39.5 percentage points.
Christophe Rezk, Yasutaka Kamei, Shane McIntosh
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1