Towards Understanding the Impact of Data Bugs on Deep Learning Models in Software Engineering
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deep learning (DL) techniques have achieved significant success in various software engineering tasks (e.g., code completion by Copilot). However, DL systems are prone to bugs from many sources, including training data. Existing literature suggests that bugs in training data are highly prevalent, but little research has focused on understanding their impacts on the models used in software engineering tasks. In this paper, we address this research gap through a comprehensive empirical investigation focused on three types of data prevalent in software engineering tasks: code-based, text-based, and metric-based. Using state-of-the-art baselines, we compare the models trained on clean datasets with those trained on datasets with quality issues and without proper preprocessing. By analysing the gradients, weights, and biases from neural networks under training, we identify the symptoms of data quality and preprocessing issues. Our analysis reveals that quality issues in code data cause biased learning and gradient instability, whereas problems in text data lead to overfitting and poor generalisation of models. On the other hand, quality issues in metric data result in exploding gradients and model overfitting, and inadequate preprocessing exacerbates these effects across all three data types. Finally, we demonstrate the validity and generalizability of our findings using six new datasets. Our research provides a better understanding of the impact and symptoms of data bugs in software engineering datasets. Practitioners and researchers can leverage these findings to develop better monitoring systems and data-cleaning methods to help detect and resolve data bugs in deep learning systems.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2026Characterizing Faults in Agentic AI: A Taxonomy of Types, Symptoms, and Root Causescited by 12
- 2025GradientStabilizer:Fix the Norm, Not the Gradientcited by 6
- 2026When Agents Fail: A Comprehensive Study of Bugs in LLM Agents with Automated Labelingcited by 6
- 2025Imitation Game: Reproducing Deep Learning Bugs Leveraging an Intelligent Agentcited by 1
- 2025MANTRA: a Framework for Multi-stage Adaptive Noise TReAtment During Trainingcited by 0
- 2026Training Dynamics of Neural Software Defect Predictors under Coupled Data-Quality Issuescited by 0
- 2026Training Dynamics of Neural Software Defect Predictors under Coupled Data-Quality Issues23 Jun 2026
- 2026Characterizing Faults in Agentic AI: A Taxonomy of Types, Symptoms, and Root Causes6 Mar 2026
- 2026When Agents Fail: A Comprehensive Study of Bugs in LLM Agents with Automated Labeling21 Jan 2026
- 2025Imitation Game: Reproducing Deep Learning Bugs Leveraging an Intelligent Agent17 Dec 2025
- 2025MANTRA: a Framework for Multi-stage Adaptive Noise TReAtment During Training3 Dec 2025
- 2025GradientStabilizer:Fix the Norm, Not the Gradient24 Feb 2025