关于理解和预测问题环节

IF 2.1 3区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Requirements Engineering Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1007/s00766-023-00406-x
Clara Marie Lüders, Tim Pietz, Walid Maalej
{"title":"关于理解和预测问题环节","authors":"Clara Marie Lüders, Tim Pietz, Walid Maalej","doi":"10.1007/s00766-023-00406-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Stakeholders in software projects use issue trackers like JIRA or Bugzilla to capture and manage issues, including requirements, feature requests, and bugs. To ease issue navigation and structure project knowledge, stakeholders manually connect issues via links of certain types that reflect different dependencies, such as Epic-, Block-, Duplicate-, or Relate- links. Based on a large dataset of 16 JIRA repositories, we study the commonalities and differences in linking practices and link types across the repositories. We then investigate how state-of-the-art machine learning models can predict common link types. We observed significant differences across the repositories and link types, depending on how they are used and by whom. Additionally, we observed several inconsistencies, e.g., in how Duplicate links are used. We found that a transformer model trained on titles and descriptions of linked issues significantly outperforms other optimized models, achieving an encouraging average macro F1-score of 0.64 for predicting nine popular link types across all repositories (weighted F1-score of 0.73). For the specific Subtask- and Epic- links, the model achieves top F1-scores of 0.89 and 0.97, respectively. If we restrict the task to predict the mere existence of links, the average macro F1-score goes up to 0.95. In general, the shorter issue text, possibly indicating precise issues, seems to improve the prediction accuracy with a strong negative correlation of $$-$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> </mml:math> 0.73. We found that Relate-links often get confused with the other links, which suggests that they are likely used as default links in unclear cases. Our findings particularly on the quality and heterogeinity of issue link data have implications for researching and applying issue link prediction in practice.","PeriodicalId":20912,"journal":{"name":"Requirements Engineering","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On understanding and predicting issue links\",\"authors\":\"Clara Marie Lüders, Tim Pietz, Walid Maalej\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00766-023-00406-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Stakeholders in software projects use issue trackers like JIRA or Bugzilla to capture and manage issues, including requirements, feature requests, and bugs. To ease issue navigation and structure project knowledge, stakeholders manually connect issues via links of certain types that reflect different dependencies, such as Epic-, Block-, Duplicate-, or Relate- links. Based on a large dataset of 16 JIRA repositories, we study the commonalities and differences in linking practices and link types across the repositories. We then investigate how state-of-the-art machine learning models can predict common link types. We observed significant differences across the repositories and link types, depending on how they are used and by whom. Additionally, we observed several inconsistencies, e.g., in how Duplicate links are used. We found that a transformer model trained on titles and descriptions of linked issues significantly outperforms other optimized models, achieving an encouraging average macro F1-score of 0.64 for predicting nine popular link types across all repositories (weighted F1-score of 0.73). For the specific Subtask- and Epic- links, the model achieves top F1-scores of 0.89 and 0.97, respectively. If we restrict the task to predict the mere existence of links, the average macro F1-score goes up to 0.95. In general, the shorter issue text, possibly indicating precise issues, seems to improve the prediction accuracy with a strong negative correlation of $$-$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\\\"> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> </mml:math> 0.73. We found that Relate-links often get confused with the other links, which suggests that they are likely used as default links in unclear cases. Our findings particularly on the quality and heterogeinity of issue link data have implications for researching and applying issue link prediction in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"volume\":\"2015 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-023-00406-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Requirements Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-023-00406-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

软件项目中的涉众使用JIRA或Bugzilla之类的问题跟踪器来捕获和管理问题,包括需求、特性请求和bug。为了简化问题导航和构建项目知识,涉众通过反映不同依赖关系的特定类型的链接手动连接问题,例如Epic-、Block-、Duplicate-或Relate-链接。基于16个JIRA存储库的大型数据集,我们研究了存储库之间链接实践和链接类型的共性和差异。然后,我们研究了最先进的机器学习模型如何预测常见的链接类型。我们观察到存储库和链接类型之间的显著差异,这取决于它们的使用方式和用户。此外,我们还观察到一些不一致之处,例如,重复链接的使用方式。我们发现,对关联问题的标题和描述进行训练的转换模型明显优于其他优化模型,在预测所有存储库中的9种流行链接类型(加权f1得分为0.73)方面,实现了令人鼓舞的平均宏观f1得分0.64。对于特定的Subtask-和Epic-链接,该模型分别达到了0.89和0.97的最高f1分数。如果我们将任务限制为预测链接的存在,平均宏观f1得分上升到0.95。一般来说,较短的问题文本(可能表示精确的问题)似乎提高了预测的准确性,其负相关关系为$$-$$ - 0.73。我们发现关联链接经常与其他链接混淆,这表明它们可能在不明确的情况下被用作默认链接。我们的发现,特别是在问题链接数据的质量和异质性方面,对问题链接预测的研究和应用具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On understanding and predicting issue links
Abstract Stakeholders in software projects use issue trackers like JIRA or Bugzilla to capture and manage issues, including requirements, feature requests, and bugs. To ease issue navigation and structure project knowledge, stakeholders manually connect issues via links of certain types that reflect different dependencies, such as Epic-, Block-, Duplicate-, or Relate- links. Based on a large dataset of 16 JIRA repositories, we study the commonalities and differences in linking practices and link types across the repositories. We then investigate how state-of-the-art machine learning models can predict common link types. We observed significant differences across the repositories and link types, depending on how they are used and by whom. Additionally, we observed several inconsistencies, e.g., in how Duplicate links are used. We found that a transformer model trained on titles and descriptions of linked issues significantly outperforms other optimized models, achieving an encouraging average macro F1-score of 0.64 for predicting nine popular link types across all repositories (weighted F1-score of 0.73). For the specific Subtask- and Epic- links, the model achieves top F1-scores of 0.89 and 0.97, respectively. If we restrict the task to predict the mere existence of links, the average macro F1-score goes up to 0.95. In general, the shorter issue text, possibly indicating precise issues, seems to improve the prediction accuracy with a strong negative correlation of $$-$$ - 0.73. We found that Relate-links often get confused with the other links, which suggests that they are likely used as default links in unclear cases. Our findings particularly on the quality and heterogeinity of issue link data have implications for researching and applying issue link prediction in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Requirements Engineering
Requirements Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal provides a focus for the dissemination of new results about the elicitation, representation and validation of requirements of software intensive information systems or applications. Theoretical and applied submissions are welcome, but all papers must explicitly address: -the practical consequences of the ideas for the design of complex systems -how the ideas should be evaluated by the reflective practitioner The journal is motivated by a multi-disciplinary view that considers requirements not only in terms of software components specification but also in terms of activities for their elicitation, representation and agreement, carried out within an organisational and social context. To this end, contributions are sought from fields such as software engineering, information systems, occupational sociology, cognitive and organisational psychology, human-computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, linguistics and philosophy for work addressing specifically requirements engineering issues.
期刊最新文献
New product development based on non-functional requirements in renewable energy industries using hesitant fuzzy QFD-DFX approach Recommending and release planning of user-driven functionality deletion for mobile apps Benchmarking requirement template systems: comparing appropriateness, usability, and expressiveness A natural language-based method to specify privacy requirements: an evaluation with practitioners Navigating personalized medication: unveiling user needs to forge a cutting-edge platform for proactive prevention and monitoring of adverse drug reactions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1