A study on the impact of pre-trained model on Just-In-Time defect prediction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Previous researchers conducting Just-In-Time (JIT) defect prediction tasks have primarily focused on the performance of individual pre-trained models, without exploring the relationship between different pre-trained models as backbones. In this study, we build six models: RoBERTaJIT, CodeBERTJIT, BARTJIT, PLBARTJIT, GPT2JIT, and CodeGPTJIT, each with a distinct pre-trained model as its backbone. We systematically explore the differences and connections between these models. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the models when using Commit code and Commit message as inputs, as well as the relationship between training efficiency and model distribution among these six models. Additionally, we conduct an ablation experiment to explore the sensitivity of each model to inputs. Furthermore, we investigate how the models perform in zero-shot and few-shot scenarios. Our findings indicate that each model based on different backbones shows improvements, and when the backbone's pre-training model is similar, the training resources that need to be consumed are much more closer. We also observe that Commit code plays a significant role in defect detection, and different pre-trained models demonstrate better defect detection ability with a balanced dataset under few-shot scenarios. These results provide new insights for optimizing JIT defect prediction tasks using pre-trained models and highlight the factors that require more attention when constructing such models. Additionally, CodeGPTJIT and GPT2JIT achieved better performance than DeepJIT and CC2Vec on the two datasets respectively under 2000 training samples. These findings emphasize the effectiveness of transformer-based pre-trained models in JIT defect prediction tasks, especially in scenarios with limited training data.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2023.
Builds on
17 of 48 references.
References · 17
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 7,005
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,375
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,474
- 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,290
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2021Unified Pre-training for Program Understanding and Generationcited by 366
5 more
- 2014Recurrent Neural Network Regularizationcited by 189
- 2020A Survey on Contextual Embeddingscited by 48
- 2020CC2Vec: Distributed Representations of Code Changescited by 39
- 2021JITLine: A Simpler, Better, Faster, Finer-grained Just-In-Time Defect Predictioncited by 15
- 2017Multilingual Hierarchical Attention Networks for Document Classificationcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
3 papers.
- 2024CodeArt: Better Code Models by Attention Regularization When Symbols Are Lackingcited by 7
- 2025ReDef: Do Code Language Models Truly Understand Code Changes for Just-in-Time Software Defect Prediction?cited by 0
- 2025CodeFlowLM: Incremental Just-In-Time Defect Prediction with Pretrained Language Models and Exploratory Insights into Defect Localizationcited by 0
- 2025CodeFlowLM: Incremental Just-In-Time Defect Prediction with Pretrained Language Models and Exploratory Insights into Defect Localization28 Nov 2025
- 2025ReDef: Do Code Language Models Truly Understand Code Changes for Just-in-Time Software Defect Prediction?11 Sep 2025
- 2024CodeArt: Better Code Models by Attention Regularization When Symbols Are Lacking19 Feb 2024