mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Less, but Stronger: On the Value of Strong Heuristics in Semi-supervised Learning for Software Analytics

arXiv 2302.01997 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2023cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In many domains, there are many examples and far fewer labels for those examples; e.g. we may have access to millions of lines of source code, but access to only a handful of warnings about that code. In those domains, semi-supervised learners (SSL) can extrapolate labels from a small number of examples to the rest of the data. Standard SSL algorithms use ``weak'' knowledge (i.e. those not based on specific SE knowledge) such as (e.g.) co-train two learners and use good labels from one to train the other. Another approach of SSL in software analytics is potentially use ``strong'' knowledge that use SE knowledge. For example, an often-used heuristic in SE is that unusually large artifacts contain undesired properties (e.g. more bugs). This paper argues that such ``strong'' algorithms perform better than those standard, weaker, SSL algorithms. We show this by learning models from labels generated using weak SSL or our ``stronger'' FRUGAL algorithm. In four domains (distinguishing security-related bug reports; mitigating bias in decision-making; predicting issue close time; and (reducing false alarms in static code warnings), FRUGAL required only 2.5% of the data to be labeled yet out-performed standard semi-supervised learners that relied on (e.g.) some domain-independent graph theory concepts. Hence, for future work, we strongly recommend the use of strong heuristics for semi-supervised learning for SE applications. To better support other researchers, our scripts and data are on-line at https://github.com/HuyTu7/FRUGAL.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 116 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2023.

Builds on

23 of 116 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
  5. 2018Deep Co-Training for Semi-Supervised Image Recognitioncited by 145
  6. 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 123
  7. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
  8. 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 92
  9. 2017Racial Disparity in Natural Language Processing: A Case Study of Social Media African-American Englishcited by 69
  10. 2016Tuning for Software Analytics: is it Really Necessary?cited by 18
  11. 2017Is "Better Data" Better than "Better Data Miners"? (On the Benefits of Tuning SMOTE for Defect Prediction)cited by 17
  12. 2022Detecting False Alarms from Automatic Static Analysis Tools: How Far are We?cited by 16
11 more
  1. 2018A Benchmark Study on Sentiment Analysis for Software Engineering Researchcited by 14
  2. 2019Better Data Labelling with EMBLEM (and how that Impacts Defect Prediction)cited by 13
  3. 2019How to "DODGE" Complex Software Analytics?cited by 11
  4. 2018Improving Vulnerability Inspection Efficiency Using Active Learningcited by 10
  5. 2020Identifying Self-Admitted Technical Debts with Jitterbug: A Two-step Approachcited by 10
  6. 2021FRUGAL: Unlocking SSL for Software Analyticscited by 6
  7. 2019Replication Can Improve Prior Results: A GitHub Study of Pull Request Acceptancecited by 4
  8. 2020Learning to Recognize Actionable Static Code Warnings (is Intrinsically Easy)cited by 4
  9. 2020Defect Reduction Planning (using TimeLIME)cited by 4
  10. 2017FLASH: A Faster Optimizer for SBSE Taskscited by 3
  11. 2019TERMINATOR: Better Automated UI Test Case Prioritizationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.