Boosting Automatic Commit Classification Into Maintenance Activities By Utilizing Source Code Changes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Background: Understanding maintenance activities performed in a source code repository could help practitioners reduce uncertainty and improve cost-effectiveness by planning ahead and pre-allocating resources towards source code maintenance. The research community uses 3 main classification categories for maintenance activities: Corrective: fault fixing; Perfective: system improvements; Adaptive: new feature introduction. Previous work in this area has mostly concentrated on evaluating commit classification (into maintenance activities) models in the scope of a single software project. Aims: In this work we seek to design a commit classification model capable of providing high accuracy and Kappa across different projects. In addition, we wish to compare the accuracy and kappa characteristics of classification models that utilize word frequency analysis, source code changes, and combination thereof. Method: We suggest a novel method for automatically classifying commits into maintenance activities by utilizing source code changes (e.g, statement added, method removed, etc.). The results we report are based on studying 11 popular open source projects from various professional domains from which we had manually classified 1151 commits, over 100 from each of the studied projects. Our models were trained using 85% of the dataset, while the remaining 15% were used as a test set. Results: Our method shows a promising accuracy of 76% and Cohen's kappa of 63% (considered "Good" in this context) for the test dataset, an improvement of over 20 percentage points, and a relative boost of ~40% in the context of cross-project classification. Conclusions: We show that by using source code changes in combination with commit message word frequency analysis we are able to considerably boost classification quality in a project agnostic manner.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2017.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 0; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
8 papers.
- 2023Can It Edit? Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Follow Code Editing Instructionscited by 46
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysiscited by 23
- 2024COMET: Generating Commit Messages using Delta Graph Context Representationcited by 3
- 2026Will It Survive? Deciphering the Fate of AI-Generated Code in Open Sourcecited by 3
- 2021End to End Software Engineering Researchcited by 2
- 2025Today's Cat Is Tomorrow's Dog: Accounting for Time-Based Changes in the Labels of ML Vulnerability Detection Approachescited by 0
- 2026Agentic Repository Mining: A Multi-Task Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Deployment Risk Assessment Using Diff-Aware Features: A Case Study at Prime Videocited by 0
- 2026Deployment Risk Assessment Using Diff-Aware Features: A Case Study at Prime Video7 Jul 2026
- 2026Agentic Repository Mining: A Multi-Task Evaluation6 May 2026
- 2026Will It Survive? Deciphering the Fate of AI-Generated Code in Open Source23 Jan 2026
- 2025Today's Cat Is Tomorrow's Dog: Accounting for Time-Based Changes in the Labels of ML Vulnerability Detection Approaches13 Jun 2025
- 2024COMET: Generating Commit Messages using Delta Graph Context Representation2 Feb 2024
- 2023Can It Edit? Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Follow Code Editing Instructions11 Dec 2023
- 2021End to End Software Engineering Research22 Dec 2021
- 2021A Survey on Machine Learning Techniques for Source Code Analysis18 Oct 2021