Zhaoqiang Guo
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Background. Self-admitted technical debt (SATD) is a special kind of technical debt that is intentionally introduced and remarked by code comments. Those technical debts reduce the quality of software and increase the cost of subsequent software maintenance. Therefore, it is necessary to find out and resolve these debts in time. Recently, many automatic approaches have been proposed to identify SATD. Problem. Popular IDEs support a number of predefined task annotation tags for indicating SATD in comments, which have been used in many projects. However, such clear prior knowledge is neglected by existing SATD identification approaches when identifying SATD. Objective. We aim to investigate how far we have really progressed in the field of SATD identification by comparing existing approaches with a simple approach that leverages the predefined task tags to identify SATD. Method. We first propose a simple heuristic approach that fuzzily Matches task Annotation Tags (MAT) in comments to identify SATD. In nature, MAT is an unsupervised approach, which does not need any data to train a prediction model and has a good understandability. Then, we examine the real progress in SATD identification by comparing MAT against existing approaches. Result. The experimental results reveal that: (1) MAT has a similar or even superior performance for SATD identification compared with existing approaches, regardless of whether non-effort-aware or effort-aware evaluation indicators are considered; (2) the SATDs (or non-SATDs) correctly identified by existing approaches are highly overlapped with those identified by MAT; and (3) supervised approaches misclassify many SATDs marked with task tags as non-SATDs, which can be easily corrected by their combinations with MAT. Conclusion. It appears that the problem of SATD identification has been (unintentionally) complicated by our community, i.e., the real progress in SATD comments identification is not being achieved as it might have been envisaged. We hence suggest that, when many task tags are used in the comments of a target project, future SATD identification studies should use MAT as an easy-to-implement baseline to demonstrate the usefulness of any newly proposed approach.
- Python Developer's Guide. 2020. Retrieved from https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0350/.Google Scholar
- Tips about Eclipse. 2020. Retrieved from http://www.javaperspective.com/how-to-use-todo-and-fixme-task-tags-in-eclipse.html.++6.Google Scholar
- Tasklist of NetBeans. 2020. Retrieved from https://ui.netbeans.org/docs/hi/promoB/tasklist.html.Google Scholar
- To-Do List plugin of CodeBlocks. 2020. Retrieved from http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php/To-Do_List_plugin.Google Scholar
- Task Tags Preferences of Eclipse. 2020. Retrieved from https://www.eclipse.org/pdt/help/html/task_tags.htm.Google Scholar
- TODO comments of IntelliJ IDEA. 2020. Retrieved from https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/using-todo.html.Google Scholar
- Task List of Visual Studio. 2020. Retrieved from https://docs.microsoft.com/zh-cn/visualstudio/ide/using-the-task-list?view=vs-2015.Google Scholar
- Code Climate. 2020. Retrieved from https://codeclimate.com/.Google Scholar
- Android Studio. 2020. Retrieved from https://developer.android.com/.Google Scholar
- Qiao Huang, Emad Shihab, Xin Xia, David Lo, and Shanping Li. 2018. Identifying self-admitted technical debt in open source projects using text mining. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23, 1 (2018), 418–451. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ward Cunningham. 1993. The WyCash portfolio management system. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Mess. 4, 2 (1993), 29–30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhongxin Liu, Qiao Huang, Xin Xia, Emad Shihab, David Lo, and Shanping Li. 2018. SATD detector: A text-mining-based self-admitted technical debt detection tool. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’18). ACM, 9–12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meng Yan, Xin Xia, Emad Shihab, David Lo, Jianwei Yin, and Xiaohu Yang. 2018. Automating change-level self-admitted technical debt determination. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45, 12 (2018), 1211–1229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aniket Potdar and Emad Shihab. 2014. An exploratory study on self-admitted technical debt. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME’14). IEEE, 91–100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sultan Wehaibi, Emad Shihab, and Latifa Guerrouj. 2016. Examining the impact of self-admitted technical debt on software quality. In Proceedings of the IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER’16). IEEE, 179–188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gabriele Bavota and Barbara Russo. 2016. A large-scale empirical study on self-admitted technical debt. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 13th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’16). IEEE, 315–326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Everton da Silva Maldonado, Emad Shihab, and Nikolaos Tsantalis. 2017. Using natural language processing to automatically detect self-admitted technical debt. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43, 11 (2017), 1044–1062.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Everton da S. Maldonado and Emad Shihab. 2015. Detecting and quantifying different types of self-admitted technical debt. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD’15). IEEE, 9–15.Google Scholar
- Nico Zazworka, Antonio Vetrò, Clemente Izurieta, Sunny Wong, Yuanfang Cai, Carolyn B. Seaman, and Forrest Shull. 2014. Comparing four approaches for technical debt identification. Softw. Qual. J. 22, 3 (2014), 403–426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zengyang Li, Paris Avgeriou, and Peng Liang. 2015. A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management. J. Syst. Softw. 101 (2015), 193–220. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jiawei Han and Micheline Kamber. 2006. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, Second Edition (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Data Management Systems). Elsevier. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Margaret-Anne D. Storey, Jody Ryall, R. Ian Bull, Del Myers, and Janice Singer. 2008. TODO or to bug: Exploring how task annotations play a role in the work practices of software developers. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’08). 251–260. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nico Zazworka, Rodrigo O. Spínola, Antonio Vetrò, Forrest Shull, and Carolyn B. Seaman. 2013. A case study on effectively identifying technical debt. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE’13). 42–47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nico Zazworka, Michele A. Shaw, Forrest Shull, and Carolyn B. Seaman. 2011. Investigating the impact of design debt on software quality. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD’11). 17–23. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clemente Izurieta, Antonio Vetrò, Nico Zazworka, Yuanfang Cai, Carolyn B. Seaman, and Forrest Shull. 2012. Organizing the technical debt landscape. In Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD’12). 23–26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicolli S. R. Alves, Leilane Ferreira Ribeiro, Vivyane Caires, Thiago Souto Mendes, and Rodrigo O. Spínola. 2014. Towards an ontology of terms on technical debt. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD’14). 1–7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beat Fluri, Michael Würsch, and Harald C. Gall. 2007. Do code and comments coevolve? On the relation between source code and comment changes. In Proceedings of 14th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE’07). 70–79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haroon Malik, Istehad Chowdhury, Hsiao-Ming Tsou, Zhen Ming Jiang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2008. Understanding the rationale for updating a function's comment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’08). 167–176.Google Scholar
- Nanette Brown, Yuanfang Cai, Yuepu Guo, Rick Kazman, Miryung Kim, Philippe Kruchten, Erin Lim, Alan MacCormack, Robert L. Nord, Ipek Ozkaya, Raghvinder S. Sangwan, Carolyn B. Seaman, Kevin J. Sullivan, and Nico Zazworka. 2010. Managing technical debt in software-reliant systems. In Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research (FoSER’10). 47–52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frank Buschmann. 2011. To pay or not to pay technical debt. IEEE Softw. 28, 6 (2011), 29–31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erin Lim, Nitin Taksande, and Carolyn B. Seaman. 2012. A balancing act: What software practitioners have to say about technical debt. IEEE Softw. 29, 6 (2012). 22–27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philippe Kruchten, Robert L. Nord, Ipek Ozkaya, and Davide Falessi. 2013. Technical debt: Towards a crisper definition report on the 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 38, 5 (2013), 51–54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gerard Salton, A. Wong, and Chung-Shu Yang. 1975. A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun. ACM 18, 11 (1975), 613–620. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shin Hwei Tan, Darko Marinov, Lin Tan, and Gary T. Leavens. 2012. @tComment: Testing Javadoc comments to detect comment-code inconsistencies. In Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST’12). IEEE, 260–269. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ninus Khamis, René Witte, and Juergen Rilling. 2010. Automatic quality assessment of source code comments: The JavadocMiner. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB’10). 68–79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew J. Howard, Samir Gupta, Lori L. Pollock, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2013. Automatically mining software-based, semantically-similar words from comment-code mappings. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’13). 377–386. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniela Steidl, Benjamin Hummel, and Elmar Jürgens. 2013. Quality analysis of source code comments. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC’13). IEEE, 83–92.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bradley L. Vinz and Letha H. Etzkorn. 2008. Improving program comprehension by combining code understanding with comment understanding. Knowl.-based Syst. 21, 8 (2008), 813–825. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hirohisa Aman, and Hirokazu Okazaki. 2008. Impact of comment statement on code stability in open source development. In Proceedings of the 8th Joint Conference on Knowledge-based Software Engineering (JCKBSE’08). 415–419. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Armstrong A. Takang, Penny A. Grubb, and Robert D. Macredie. 1996. The effects of comments and identifier names on program comprehensibility: An experimental investigation. J. Prog. Lang. 4, 3 (1996), 143–167.Google Scholar
- Xiaobing Sun, Qiang Geng, David Lo, Yucong Duan, Xiangyue Liu, and Bin Li. 2016. Code comment quality analysis and improvement recommendation: An automated approach. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 26, 6 (2016), 981–1000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul W. Mcburney and Collin Mcmillan. 2016. An empirical study of the textual similarity between source code and source code summaries. Empir. Softw. Eng. 21, 1 (2016), 17–42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2002. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput. Surv. 34, 1 (2002), 1–47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haibo He and Edwardo A. Garcia. 2009. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 21, 9 (2009), 1263–1284. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Georgios Digkas, Mircea Lungu, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, and Paris Avgeriou. 2017. The evolution of technical debt in the apache ecosystem. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA’17). 51–66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chao Liu, Cuiyun Gao, Xin Xia, David Lo, John C. Grundy, and Xiaohu Yang. 2020. On the replicability and reproducibility of deep learning in software engineering. CoRR abs/2006.14244 (2020).Google Scholar
- Yoav Benjamini and Daniel Yekutieli. 2001. The control of false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Statist. 29, 4 (2001), 1165–1188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nikolaos Tsantalis, Theodoros Chaikalis, and Alexander Chatzigeorgiou. 2008. Jdeodorant: Identification and removal of type-checking bad smells. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR’08). 329–331. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaoxue Ren, Zhenchang Xing, Xin Xia, David Lo, Xinyu Wang, and John Grundy. 2019. Neural network based detection of self-admitted technical debt: From performance to explainability. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 28, 3 (2019). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tomás Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’13). 3111–3119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Duyu Tang, Furu Wei, Nan Yang, Ming Zhou, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2014. Learning sentiment-specific word embedding for Twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’14). 1555–1565.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’12). 1106–1114. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yibiao Yang, Yuming Zhou, Jinping Liu, Yangyang Zhao, Hongmin Lu, Lei Xu, Baowen Xu, and Hareton Leung. 2016. Effort-aware just-in-time defect prediction: Simple unsupervised models could be better than supervised models. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’16). 157–168. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wei Fu and Tim Menzies. 2017. Easy over hard: A case study on deep learning. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’17). 49–60. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Qiao Huang, Xin Xia, and David Lo. 2019. Revisiting supervised and unsupervised models for effort-aware just-in-time defect prediction. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24, 5 (2019), 2823–2862.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Qiao Huang, Xin Xia, and David Lo. 2017. Supervised vs. unsupervised models: A holistic look at effort-aware just-in-time defect prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME’17). IEEE, 159–170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bowen Xu, Amirreza Shirani, David Lo, and Mohammad Amin Alipour. 2018. Prediction of relatedness in stack overflow: Deep learning vs. SVM: A reproducibility study. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM’18). 1–10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Margaret-Anne D. Storey, Jody Ryall, Janice Singer, Del Myers, Li-Te Cheng, and Michael J. Muller. 2009. How software developers use tagging to support reminding and refinding. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 4 (2009), 470–483. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Annie T. T. Ying, James L. Wright, and Steven Abrams. 2005. Source code that talks: an exploration of eclipse task comments and their implication to repository mining. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’05). 1–5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher D. Manning, and Dan Klein. 2003. Optimization, maxent models, and conditional estimation without magic. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (HLT-NAACL’03). 8–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rahul, Krishna and Tim Menzies. 2017. Bellwethers: A baseline method for transfer learning. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45, 11 (2017), 1081–1105.Google Scholar
- Jianfeng Chen, Vivek Nair, Rahul Krishna, and Tim Menzies. 2019. “Sampling” as a baseline optimizer for search-based software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45, 6 (2019), 597–614.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter A. Whigham, Caitlin A. Owen, and Stephen G. MacDonell. 2015. A baseline model for software effort estimation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24, 3 (2015). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yuming Zhou, Yibiao Yang, Hongmin Lu, Lin Chen, Yanhui Li, Yangyang Zhao, Junyan Qian, and Baowen Xu. 2018. How far we have progressed in the journey? An examination of cross-project defect prediction. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 27, 1 (2018). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Souto Maior de Barros and Silas Garrido Teixeira de Carvalho Santos. 2018. A large-scale comparison of concept drift detectors. Inf. Sci. 451-452, (2018), 348–370.Google Scholar
- Tsung-Han Chan, Kui Jia, Shenghua Gao, Jiwen Lu, Zinan Zeng, and Yi Ma. 2015. PCANet: A simple deep learning baseline for image classification. IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 24, 12 (2015), 5017–5032.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhiguang Wang, Weizhong Yan, and Tim Oates. 2017. Time series classification from scratch with deep neural networks: A strong baseline. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN’17). 1578–1585.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hongjian Wang, Xianfeng Tang, Yu-Hsuan Kuo, Daniel Kifer, and Zhenhui Li. 2019. A simple baseline for travel time estimation using large-scale trip data. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 10, 2 (2019). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bin Xiao, Haiping Wu, and Yichen Wei. 2018. Simple baselines for human pose estimation and tracking. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’18). 472–487.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kawin Ethayarajh. 2018. Unsupervised random walk sentence embeddings: A strong but simple baseline. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (Rep4NLP@ACL’18). 91–100.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zheng Xu, Xitong Yang, Xue Li, and Xiaoshuai Sun. 2018. The effectiveness of instance normalization: A strong baseline for single image dehazing. CoRR abs/1805.03305 (2018).Google Scholar
- Yaming Tang, Fei Zhao, Yibiao Yang, Hongmin Lu, Yuming Zhou, and Baowen Xu. 2015. Predicting vulnerable components via text mining or software metrics? An effort-aware perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS’15). 27–36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Souto Maior de Barros, Juan Isidro González Hidalgo, and Danilo Rafael de Lima Cabral. 2018. Wilcoxon rank sum test drift detector. Neurocomputing 275 (2018), 1954–1963. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Annibale Panichella, Rocco Oliveto, and Andrea De Lucia. 2014. Cross-project defect prediction models: L'Union fait la force. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering, and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE’14). 164–173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhongxin Liu, Xin Xia, Ahmed E. Hassan, David Lo, Zhenchang Xing, and Xinyu Wang. 2018. Neural-machine-translation-based commit message generation: How far are we? In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’18). 373–384. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yuming Zhou, Baowen Xu, Hareton Leung, and Lin Chen. 2014. An in-depth study of the potentially confounding effect of class size in fault prediction. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 23, 1 (2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suvodeep Majumder, Nikhila Balaji, Katie Brey, Wei Fu, and Tim Menzies. 2018. 500+ times faster than deep learning: A case study exploring faster methods for text mining stackoverflow. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’18). 554-563. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. XX, 1 (1960), 37–46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph L. Fleiss. 1981. The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical Methods Rates Proportions. John Wiley, NewYork.Google Scholar
- Retrieved from https://github.com/Naplues/MAT.Google Scholar
- Giancarlo Sierra, Emad Shihab, and Yasutaka Kamei. 2019. A survey of self-admitted technical debt. J. Syst. Softw. 152, (2019), 70–82.Google Scholar
- Supatsara Wattanakriengkrai, Rungroj Maipradit, Hideaki Hata, Morakot Choetkiertikul, Thanwadee Sunetnanta, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2018. Identifying design and requirement self-admitted technical debt using n-gram IDF. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice (IWESEP’18). 7–12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maleknaz Nayebi, Yuanfang Cai, Rick Kazman, Guenther Ruhe, Qiong Feng, Chris Carlson, and Francis Chew. 2018. A longitudinal study of identifying and paying down architectural debt. CoRR abs/1811.12904 (2018).Google Scholar
- Nathalie Japkowicz and Mohak Shah. 2011. Evaluating Learning Algorithms: A Classification Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. E. Breslow and N. E. Day. 1980. Statistical methods in cancer research: The analysis of case-control studies. IARC Sci. Public. 1, 32 (1980), 5–338.Google Scholar
- Matthew Hutson. 2018. Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis. Comput. Sci. 359, 6377 (2018), 725–726.Google Scholar
- Andrew Lane Beam, Arjun K. Manrai, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. 2020. Challenges to the reproducibility of machine learning models in health care. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 323, 4 (2020).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Feng Zhang, Iman Keivanloo, and Ying Zou. 2017. Data transformation in cross-project defect prediction. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 6 (2017), 3186–3218. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaodong Gu, Hongyu Zhang, Dongmei Zhang, and Sunghun Kim. 2016. Deep API learning. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’16). 631–642. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chengnian Sun, David Lo, Xiaoyin Wang, Jing Jiang, and Siau-Cheng Khoo. 2010. A discriminative model approach for accurate duplicate bug report retrieval. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’10). 45–54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alex Graves, M. Abdel-rahman, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2013. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’13). 6645–6649.Google Scholar
- Bowen Xu, Deheng Ye, Zhenchang Xing, Xin Xia, Guibin Chen, and Shanping Li. 2016. Predicting semantically linkable knowledge in developer online forums via convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’16). 51–62. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lin Ma, Zhengdong Lu, and Hang Li. 2016. Learning to answer questions from image using convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’16). 3567–3573. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14). Association for Computational Linguistics, 1746–1751.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhe Yu, Fahmid Morshed Fahid, Huy Tu, and Tim Menzies. 2020. Identifying self-admitted technical debts with Jitterbug: A two-step approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2020).Google Scholar
- Fei Zhao, Yaming Tang, Yibiao Yang, Hongmin Lu, Yuming Zhou and Baowen Xu. 2015. Is learning-to-rank cost-effective in recommending relevant files for bug localization? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS’15). 298–303. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How Far Have We Progressed in Identifying Self-admitted Technical Debts? A Comprehensive Empirical Study
Recommendations
Neural Network-based Detection of Self-Admitted Technical Debt: From Performance to Explainability
Technical debt is a metaphor to reflect the tradeoff software engineers make between short-term benefits and long-term stability. Self-admitted technical debt (SATD), a variant of technical debt, has been proposed to identify debt that is intentionally ...
An empirical study on self-admitted technical debt in modern code review
AbstractTechnical debt is a sub-optimal state of development in projects. In particular, the type of technical debt incurred by developers themselves (e.g., comments that mean the implementation is imperfect and should be replaced with another ...
Self-Admitted Technical Debt and comments’ polarity: an empirical study
AbstractSelf-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD) consists of annotations—typically, but not only, source code comments—pointing out incomplete features, maintainability problems, or, in general, portions of a program not-ready yet. The way a SATD comment is ...
Comments