REVIEW 2 cited by
Better Predictors for Issue Lifetime
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
read the original abstract
Predicting issue lifetime can help software developers, managers, and stakeholders effectively prioritize work, allocate development resources, and better understand project timelines. Progress had been made on this prediction problem, but prior work has reported low precision and high false alarms. The latest results also use complex models such as random forests that detract from their readability. We solve both issues by using small, readable decision trees (under 20 lines long) and correlation feature selection to predict issue lifetime, achieving high precision and low false alarms (medians of 71% and 13% respectively). We also address the problem of high class imbalance within issue datasets - when local data fails to train a good model, we show that cross-project data can be used in place of the local data. In fact, cross-project data works so well that we argue it should be the default approach for learning predictors for issue lifetime.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
G-Issue: Analyzing Lifetime and Evolution of Issue-related Artifacts from Open Source Repositories
G-Issue mines issue artifacts faster than Python APIs but uses more memory, and lifetime/evolution data can help prioritize issues in open source projects.
-
Retrospective: Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors
A retrospective argument that publishing a baseline with data and scripts created a research community, and that the old PROMISE datasets now slow the field down.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.