Learning from Very Little Data: On the Value of Landscape Analysis for Predicting Software Project Health
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When data is scarce, software analytics can make many mistakes. For example, consider learning predictors for open source project health (e.g. the number of closed pull requests in twelve months time). The training data for this task may be very small (e.g. five years of data, collected every month means just 60 rows of training data). The models generated from such tiny data sets can make many prediction errors. Those errors can be tamed by a em landscape analysis that selects better learner control parameters. Our niSNEAK tool (a)~clusters the data to find the general landscape of the hyperparameters; then (b)~explores a few representatives from each part of that landscape. niSNEAK is both faster and more effective than prior state-of-the-art hyperparameter optimization algorithms (e.g. FLASH, HYPEROPT, OPTUNA). The configurations found by niSNEAK have far less error than other methods. For example, for project health indicators such as C= number of commits; I=number of closed issues, and R=number of closed pull requests, niSNEAK's 12 month prediction errors are I=0%, R=33%,C=47% Based on the above, we recommend landscape analytics (e.g. niSNEAK) especially when learning from very small data sets. This paper only explores the application of niSNEAK to project health. That said, we see nothing in principle that prevents the application of this technique to a wider range of problems. To assist other researchers in repeating, improving, or even refuting our results, all our scripts and data are available on GitHub at https://github.com/zxcv123456qwe/niSneak
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2023.
Builds on
21 of 77 references.
References · 21
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
- 2018Finding Faster Configurations using FLASHcited by 32
- 2016Tuning for Software Analytics: is it Really Necessary?cited by 18
- 2017Is "Better Data" Better than "Better Data Miners"? (On the Benefits of Tuning SMOTE for Defect Prediction)cited by 17
- 2018Hyperparameter Optimization for Effort Estimationcited by 13
- 2019Visualising Basins of Attraction for the Cross-Entropy and the Squared Error Neural Network Loss Functionscited by 13
- 2019How to "DODGE" Complex Software Analytics?cited by 11
- 2020Identifying Self-Admitted Technical Debts with Jitterbug: A Two-step Approachcited by 10
- 2016"Sampling"' as a Baseline Optimizer for Search-based Software Engineeringcited by 8
- 2021Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimationcited by 6
- 2021FRUGAL: Unlocking SSL for Software Analyticscited by 6
- 2020Simpler Hyperparameter Optimization for Software Analytics: Why, How, When?cited by 5
9 more
- 2022DebtFree: Minimizing Labeling Cost in Self-Admitted Technical Debt Identification using Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 5
- 2017Correction of "A Comparative Study to Benchmark Cross-project Defect Prediction Approaches"cited by 4
- 2018Better Software Analytics via "DUO": Data Mining Algorithms Using/Used-by Optimizerscited by 4
- 2020Early Life Cycle Software Defect Prediction. Why? How?cited by 4
- 2021Mining Scientific Workflows for Anomalous Data Transferscited by 4
- 2016Why is Differential Evolution Better than Grid Search for Tuning Defect Predictors?cited by 1
- 2019Methods for Stabilizing Models across Large Samples of Projects (with case studies on Predicting Defect and Project Health)cited by 1
- 2020Predicting Health Indicators for Open Source Projects (using Hyperparameter Optimization)cited by 1
- 2022Development Effort Estimation in Free/Open Source Software from Activity in Version Control Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
3 papers.
- 2024Rethinking Performance Analysis for Configurable Software Systems: A Case Study from a Fitness Landscape Perspectivecited by 3
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspectivecited by 1
- 2026When to Use Which? Benchmarking Optimisers for Configurable Systems under Varying Budgetscited by 1
- 2026When to Use Which? Benchmarking Optimisers for Configurable Systems under Varying Budgets17 Jul 2026
- 2025Evaluating Useful Surrogate Models for Configuration Tuning Beyond Accuracy: A Fitness Landscape Analysis Perspective26 Sep 2025
- 2024Rethinking Performance Analysis for Configurable Software Systems: A Case Study from a Fitness Landscape Perspective22 Dec 2024