Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Practitioners' Perceptions of the Goals and Visual Explanations of Defect Prediction Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2102.12007 v1 pith:4EVKXBYB submitted 2021-02-24 cs.SE

Practitioners' Perceptions of the Goals and Visual Explanations of Defect Prediction Models

classification cs.SE
keywords modelspredictiondefectgoalssoftwarepractitionerstechniquesexplanations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Software defect prediction models are classifiers that are constructed from historical software data. Such software defect prediction models have been proposed to help developers optimize the limited Software Quality Assurance (SQA) resources and help managers develop SQA plans. Prior studies have different goals for their defect prediction models and use different techniques for generating visual explanations of their models. Yet, it is unclear what are the practitioners' perceptions of (1) these defect prediction model goals, and (2) the model-agnostic techniques used to visualize these models. We conducted a qualitative survey to investigate practitioners' perceptions of the goals of defect prediction models and the model-agnostic techniques used to generate visual explanations of defect prediction models. We found that (1) 82%-84% of the respondents perceived that the three goals of defect prediction models are useful; (2) LIME is the most preferred technique for understanding the most important characteristics that contributed to a prediction of a file, while ANOVA/VarImp is the second most preferred technique for understanding the characteristics that are associated with software defects in the past. Our findings highlight the significance of investigating how to improve the understanding of defect prediction models and their predictions. Hence, model-agnostic techniques from explainable AI domain may help practitioners to understand defect prediction models and their predictions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.