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

Caleb Mayeux

dblp:167/0178 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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 · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › defect prediction
change-level defect prediction
0.212015
Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data · ICSE (2) 2015
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
defect prediction
0.212015
Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data · ICSE (2) 2015
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.212015
Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data · ICSE (2) 2015

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

updatable classification · 0.2resampling · 0.2online learning · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data
abstract
Many defect prediction techniques are proposed to improve software reliability. Change classification predicts defects at the change level, where a change is the modifications to one file in a commit. In this paper, we conduct the first study of applying change classification in practice. We identify two issues in the prediction process, both of which contribute to the low prediction performance. First, the data are imbalanced -- there are much fewer buggy changes than clean changes. Second, the commonly used cross-validation approach is inappropriate for evaluating the performance of change classification. To address these challenges, we apply and adapt online change classification, resampling, and updatable classification techniques to improve the classification performance. We perform the improved change classification techniques on one proprietary and six open source projects. Our results show that these techniques improve the precision of change classification by 12.2-89.5% or 6.4 -- 34.8 percentage points (pp.) on the seven projects. In addition, we integrate change classification in the development process of the proprietary project. We have learned the following lessons: 1) new solutions are needed to convince developers to use and believe prediction results, and prediction results need to be actionable, 2) new and improved classification algorithms are needed to explain the prediction results, and insensible and unactionable explanations need to be filtered or refined, and 3) new techniques are needed to improve the relatively low precision.
Lin Tan 0001, Sashank Dara, Caleb Mayeux
ICSE (2)4