Software analytics (SA) is frequently proposed as a tool to support practitioners in software engineering (SE) tasks. We have observed that several secondary studies on SA have been published. Some of these studies have overlapping aims and some have even been published in the same calendar year. This presents an opportunity to analyze the congruence or divergence of the conclusions in these studies. Such an analysis can help identify broader generalizations beyond any of the individual secondary studies. We identified five secondary studies on the use of SA for SE. These secondary studies cover primary research from 2000 to 2021. Despite the overlapping objectives and search time frames of these secondary studies, there is negligible overlap of primary studies between these secondary studies. Thus, each of them provides an isolated view, and together, they provide a fragmented view, i.e., there is no “common picture” of the area. Thus, we conclude that an overview of the literature identified by these secondary studies would be useful in providing a more comprehensive overview of the topic.

A considerable amount of issue reports are submitted daily in large-scale software development. Manually reviewing and classifying each issue report is challenging and error-prone. Thus, to assist practitioners, in this paper, we propose and evaluate an automatic supervised machine learning-based approach that can automatically predict the newly submitted issue report type (i.e., bug, feature, question, or documentation). We applied the supervised machine learning-based approach to over 1.4 million issue reports data from real open-source projects. We performed our experiments using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)-based classifier and achieved an F1 micro average score of 0.8523. © 2023 IEEE.

Despite the accuracy of machine learning (ML) techniques in predicting invalid bug reports, as shown in earlier research, and the importance of early identification of invalid bug reports in software maintenance, the adoption of ML techniques for this task in industrial practice is yet to be investigated. In this study, we used a technology transfer model to guide the adoption of an ML technique at a company for the early identification of invalid bug reports. In the process, we also identify necessary conditions for adopting such techniques in practice. We followed a case study research approach with various design and analysis iterations for technology transfer activities. We collected data from bug repositories, through focus groups, a questionnaire, and a presentation and feedback session with an expert. As expected, we found that an ML technique can identify invalid bug reports with acceptable accuracy at an early stage. However, the technique’s accuracy drops over time in its operational use due to changes in the product, the used technologies, or the development organization. Such changes may require retraining the ML model. During validation, practitioners highlighted the need to understand the ML technique’s predictions to trust the predictions. We found that a visual (using a state-of-the-art ML interpretation framework) and descriptive explanation of the prediction increases the trustability of the technique compared to just presenting the results of the validity predictions. We conclude that trustability, integration with the existing toolchain, and maintaining the techniques’ accuracy over time are critical for increasing the likelihood of adoption. © The Author(s) 2024.

Software development companies spend considerable time resolving bug reports. However, bug reports might be invalid, i.e., not point to a valid flaw. Expensive resources and time might be expended on invalid bug reports before discovering that they are invalid. In this case study, we explore the impact of invalid bug reports and develop and assess the use of machine learning (ML) to indicate whether a bug report is likely invalid. We found that about 15% of bug reports at the case company are invalid, and that their resolution time is similar to valid bug reports. Among the ML-based techniques we used, logistic regression and SVM show promising results. In the feedback, practitioners indicated an interest in using the tool to identify invalid bug reports at early stages. However, they emphasized the need to improve the explainability of ML-based recommendations and to reduce the maintenance cost of the tool. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Context: Bug reports created during software development and maintenance do not always describe deviations from a system's valid behavior. Such invalid bug reports may consume significant resources and adversely affect the prioritization and resolution of valid bug reports. There is a need to identify preventive actions to reduce the inflow of invalid bug reports. Existing research has shown that manually analyzing invalid bug report descriptions provides cues regarding preventive actions. However, such a manual approach is not cost-effective due to the time required to analyze a sufficiently large number of bug reports needed to identify useful patterns. Furthermore, the analysis needs to be repeated as the underlying causes of invalid bug reports change over time. Objective: In this study, we propose and evaluate the use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a topic modeling approach, to support practitioners in suggesting preventive actions to avoid the creation of similar invalid bug reports in the future. Method: In an industrial case study, we first manually analyzed descriptions of invalid bug reports to identify common patterns in their descriptions. We further investigated to what extent LDA can support this manual process. We used expert-based validation to evaluate the relevance of identified common patterns and their usefulness in suggesting preventive measures. Results: We found that invalid bug reports have common patterns that are perceived as relevant, and they can be used to devise preventive measures. Furthermore, the identification of common patterns can be supported with automation. Conclusion: Using LDA, practitioners can effectively identify representative groups of bug reports (i.e., relevant common patterns) from a large number of bug reports and analyze them further to devise preventive measures. © 2023 The Author(s)