Classifier specific (CS) and classifier agnostic (CA) feature importance methods are widely used (often interchangeably) by prior studies to derive feature importance ranks from a defect classifier. However, different feature importance methods are likely to compute different feature importance ranks even for the same dataset and classifier. Hence such interchangeable use of feature importance methods can lead to conclusion instabilities unless there is a strong agreement among different methods. Therefore, in this paper, we evaluate the agreement between the feature importance ranks associated with the studied classifiers through a case study of 18 software projects and six commonly used classifiers. We find that: 1) The computed feature importance ranks by CA and CS methods do not always strongly agree with each other. 2) The computed feature importance ranks by the studied CA methods exhibit a strong agreement including the features reported at top-1 and top-3 ranks for a given dataset and classifier, while even the commonly used CS methods yield vastly different feature importance ranks. Such findings raise concerns about the stability of conclusions across replicated studies. We further observe that the commonly used defect datasets are rife with feature interactions and these feature interactions impact the computed feature importance ranks of the CS methods (not the CA methods). We demonstrate that removing these feature interactions, even with simple methods like CFS improves agreement between the computed feature importance ranks of CA and CS methods. In light of our findings, we provide guidelines for stakeholders and practitioners when performing model interpretation and directions for future research, e.g., future research is needed to investigate the impact of advanced feature interaction removal methods on computed feature importance ranks of different CS methods.

Technical question and answer Q&A platforms, such as Stack Overflow, provide a platform for users to ask and answer questions about a wide variety of programming topics. These platforms accumulate a large amount of knowledge, including hundreds of thousands lines of source code. Developers can benefit from the source code that is attached to the questions and answers on Q&A platforms by copying or learning from (parts of) it. By understanding how developers utilize source code from Q&A platforms, we can provide insights for researchers which can be used to improve next-generation Q&A platforms to help developers reuse source code fast and easily. In this paper, we first conduct an exploratory study on 289 files from 182 open-source projects, which contain source code that has an explicit reference to a Stack Overflow post. Our goal is to understand how developers utilize code from Q&A platforms and to reveal barriers that may make code reuse more difficult. In 31.5% of the studied files, developers needed to modify source code from Stack Overflow to make it work in their own projects. The degree of required modification varied from simply renaming variables to rewriting the whole algorithm. Developers sometimes chose to implement an algorithm from scratch based on the descriptions from Stack Overflow answers, even if there was an implementation readily available in the post. In 35.5% of the studied files, developers used Stack Overflow posts as an information source for later reference. To further understand the barriers of reusing code and to obtain suggestions for improving the code reuse process on Q&A platforms, we conducted a survey with 453 open-source developers who are also on Stack Overflow. We found that the top 3 barriers that make it difficult for developers to reuse code from Stack Overflow are: (1) too much code modification required to fit in their projects, (2) incomprehensive code, and (3) low code quality. We summarized and analyzed all survey responses and we identified that developers suggest improvements for future Q&A platforms along the following dimensions: code quality, information enhancement & management, data organization, license, and the human factor. For instance, developers suggest to improve the code quality by adding an integrated validator that can test source code online, and an outdated code detection mechanism. Our findings can be used as a roadmap for researchers and developers to improve code reuse.

Logs are important in modern software development with runtime information. Log parsing is the first step in many log-based analyses, that involve extracting structured information from unstructured log data. Traditional log parsers face challenges in accurately parsing logs due to the diversity of log formats, which directly impacts the performance of downstream log-analysis tasks. In this paper, we explore the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) for log parsing and propose LLMParser, an LLM-based log parser based on generative LLMs and few-shot tuning. We leverage four LLMs, Flan-T5-small, Flan-T5-base, LLaMA-7B, and ChatGLM-6B in LLMParsers. Our evaluation of 16 open-source systems shows that LLMParser achieves statistically significantly higher parsing accuracy than state-of-the-art parsers (a 96% average parsing accuracy). We further conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis on the effect of training size, model size, and pre-training LLM on log parsing accuracy. We find that smaller LLMs may be more effective than more complex LLMs; for instance where Flan-T5-base achieves comparable results as LLaMA-7B with a shorter inference time. We also find that using LLMs pre-trained using logs from other systems does not always improve parsing accuracy. While using pre-trained Flan-T5-base shows an improvement in accuracy, pre-trained LLaMA results in a decrease (decrease by almost 55% in group accuracy). In short, our study provides empirical evidence for using LLMs for log parsing and highlights the limitations and future research direction of LLM-based log parsers.

Stack Overflow accumulates an enormous amount of software engineering knowledge. However, as time passes, certain knowledge in answers may become obsolete. Such obsolete answers, if not identified or documented clearly, may mislead answer seekers and cause unexpected problems (e.g., using an out-dated security protocol). In this paper, we investigate how the knowledge in answers becomes obsolete and identify the characteristics of such obsolete answers. We find that: 1) More than half of the obsolete answers (58.4%) were probably already obsolete when they were first posted. 2) When an obsolete answer is observed, only a small proportion (20.5%) of such answers are ever updated. 3) Answers to questions in certain tags (e.g., node.js, ajax, android, and objective-c) are more likely to become obsolete. Our findings suggest that Stack Overflow should develop mechanisms to encourage the whole community to maintain answers (to avoid obsolete answers) and answer seekers are encouraged to carefully go through all information (e.g., comments) in answer threads.

To assist developers with debugging and analyzing bug reports, researchers have proposed information retrieval-based bug localization (IRBL) approaches. IRBL approaches leverage the textual information in bug reports as queries to generate a ranked list of potential buggy files that may need further investigation. Although IRBL approaches have shown promising results, most prior research only leverages the textual information that is visible in bug reports, such as bug description or title. However, in addition to the textual description of the bug, developers also often attach logs in bug reports. Logs provide important information that can be used to re-construct the system execution paths when an issue happens and assist developers with debugging. In this paper, we propose an IRBL approach, Pathidea, which leverages logs in bug reports to re-construct execution paths and helps improve the results of bug localization. Pathidea uses static analysis to create a file-level call graph, and re-constructs the call paths from the reported logs. We evaluate Pathidea on eight open source systems, with a total of 1,273 bug reports that contain logs. We find that Pathidea achieves a high recall (up to 51.9% for Top@5). On average, Pathidea achieves an improvement that varies from 8% to 21% and 5% to 21% over BRTracer in terms of Mean Average Precision (MAP) and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) across studied systems, respectively. Moreover, we find that the re-constructed execution paths can also complement other IRBL approaches by providing a 10% and 8% improvement in terms of MAP and MRR, respectively. Finally, we conduct a parameter sensitivity analysis and provide recommendations on setting the parameter values when applying Pathidea.