Perspective of Software Engineering Researchers on Machine Learning Practices Regarding Research, Review, and Education

Context: Machine Learning (ML) significantly impacts Software Engineering (SE), but studies mainly focus on practitioners, neglecting researchers. This overlooks practices and challenges in teaching, researching, or reviewing ML applications in SE. Objective: This study aims to contribute to the knowledge, about the synergy between ML and SE from the perspective of SE researchers, by providing insights into the practices followed when researching, teaching, and reviewing SE studies that apply ML. Method: We analyzed SE researchers familiar with ML or who authored SE articles using ML, along with the articles themselves. We examined practices, SE tasks addressed with ML, challenges faced, and reviewers' and educators' perspectives using grounded theory coding and qualitative analysis. Results: We found diverse practices focusing on data collection, model training, and evaluation. Some recommended practices (e.g., hyperparameter tuning) appeared in less than 20\% of literature. Common challenges involve data handling, model evaluation (incl. non-functional properties), and involving human expertise in evaluation. Hands-on activities are common in education, though traditional methods persist. Conclusion: Despite accepted practices in applying ML to SE, significant gaps remain. By enhancing guidelines, adopting diverse teaching methods, and emphasizing underrepresented practices, the SE community can bridge these gaps and advance the field.

Legal Aspects for Software Developers Interested in Generative AI Applications

Recent successes in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) have led to new technologies capable of generating high-quality code, natural language, and images. The next step is to integrate GenAI technology into products, a task typically conducted by software developers. Such product development always comes with a certain risk of liability. Within this article, we want to shed light on the current state of two such risks: data protection and copyright. Both aspects are crucial for GenAI. This technology deals with data for both model training and generated output. We summarize key aspects regarding our current knowledge that every software developer involved in product development using GenAI should be aware of to avoid critical mistakes that may expose them to liability claims.

Semantic similarity prediction is better than other semantic similarity measures

Semantic similarity between natural language texts is typically measured either by looking at the overlap between subsequences (e.g., BLEU) or by using embeddings (e.g., BERTScore, S-BERT). Within this paper, we argue that when we are only interested in measuring the semantic similarity, it is better to directly predict the similarity using a fine-tuned model for such a task. Using a fine-tuned model for the STS-B from the GLUE benchmark, we define the STSScore approach and show that the resulting similarity is better aligned with our expectations on a robust semantic similarity measure than other approaches.

AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays

Background: Recently, ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and will result in a significant change in the education system and information generation in the future. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models -- both lack scientific rigour. Objective: Through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays, we systematically assess the quality of the AI-generated content. Methods: A large corpus of essays was rated using standard criteria by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis with a consideration of the linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Results: Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher for quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays, e.g., it is characterized by fewer discourse and epistemic markers, but more nominalizations and greater lexical diversity. Conclusions: Our results clearly demonstrate that models like ChatGPT outperform humans in generating argumentative essays. Since the technology is readily available for anyone to use, educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilized the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives.

What are the Machine Learning best practices reported by practitioners on Stack Exchange?

Machine Learning (ML) is being used in multiple disciplines due to its powerful capability to infer relationships within data. In particular, Software Engineering (SE) is one of those disciplines in which ML has been used for multiple tasks, like software categorization, bugs prediction, and testing. In addition to the multiple ML applications, some studies have been conducted to detect and understand possible pitfalls and issues when using ML. However, to the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have focused on presenting ML best practices or guidelines for the application of ML in different domains. In addition, the practices and literature presented in previous literature (i) are domain-specific (e.g., concrete practices in biomechanics), (ii) describe few practices, or (iii) the practices lack rigorous validation and are presented in gray literature. In this paper, we present a study listing 127 ML best practices systematically mining 242 posts of 14 different Stack Exchange (STE) websites and validated by four independent ML experts. The list of practices is presented in a set of categories related to different stages of the implementation process of an ML-enabled system; for each practice, we include explanations and examples. In all the practices, the provided examples focus on SE tasks. We expect this list of practices could help practitioners to understand better the practices and use ML in a more informed way, in particular newcomers to this new area that sits at the intersection of software engineering and machine learning.

Studying the explanations for the automated prediction of bug and non-bug issues using LIME and SHAP

Context: The identification of bugs within the reported issues in an issue tracker is crucial for the triage of issues. Machine learning models have shown promising results regarding the performance of automated issue type prediction. However, we have only limited knowledge beyond our assumptions how such models identify bugs. LIME and SHAP are popular technique to explain the predictions of classifiers. Objective: We want to understand if machine learning models provide explanations for the classification that are reasonable to us as humans and align with our assumptions of what the models should learn. We also want to know if the prediction quality is correlated with the quality of explanations. Method: We conduct a study where we rate LIME and SHAP explanations based on their quality of explaining the outcome of an issue type prediction model. For this, we rate the quality of the explanations themselves, i.e., if they align with our expectations and if they help us to understand the underlying machine learning model.

Differential testing for machine learning: an analysis for classification algorithms beyond deep learning

Context: Differential testing is a useful approach that uses different implementations of the same algorithms and compares the results for software testing. In recent years, this approach was successfully used for test campaigns of deep learning frameworks. Objective: There is little knowledge on the application of differential testing beyond deep learning. Within this article, we want to close this gap for classification algorithms. Method: We conduct a case study using Scikit-learn, Weka, Spark MLlib, and Caret in which we identify the potential of differential testing by considering which algorithms are available in multiple frameworks, the feasibility by identifying pairs of algorithms that should exhibit the same behavior, and the effectiveness by executing tests for the identified pairs and analyzing the deviations. Results: While we found a large potential for popular algorithms, the feasibility seems limited because often it is not possible to determine configurations that are the same in other frameworks. The execution of the feasible tests revealed that there is a large amount of deviations for the scores and classes. Only a lenient approach based on statistical significance of classes does not lead to a huge amount of test failures. Conclusions: The potential of differential testing beyond deep learning seems limited for research into the quality of machine learning libraries. Practitioners may still use the approach if they have deep knowledge about implementations, especially if a coarse oracle that only considers significant differences of classes is sufficient.

Predicting Issue Types with seBERT

Pre-trained transformer models are the current state-of-the-art for natural language models processing. seBERT is such a model, that was developed based on the BERT architecture, but trained from scratch with software engineering data. We fine-tuned this model for the NLBSE challenge for the task of issue type prediction. Our model dominates the baseline fastText for all three issue types in both recall and precisio} to achieve an overall F1-score of 85.7%, which is an increase of 4.1% over the baseline.

On the validity of pre-trained transformers for natural language processing in the software engineering domain

Transformers are the current state-of-the-art of natural language processing in many domains and are using traction within software engineering research as well. Such models are pre-trained on large amounts of data, usually from the general domain. However, we only have a limited understanding regarding the validity of transformers within the software engineering domain, i.e., how good such models are at understanding words and sentences within a software engineering context and how this improves the state-of-the-art. Within this article, we shed light on this complex, but crucial issue. We compare BERT transformer models trained with software engineering data with transformers based on general domain data in multiple dimensions: their vocabulary, their ability to understand which words are missing, and their performance in classification tasks. Our results show that for tasks that require understanding of the software engineering context, pre-training with software engineering data is valuable, while general domain models are sufficient for general language understanding, also within the software engineering domain.

Expert decision support system for aeroacoustic classification

This paper presents an expert decision support system for time-invariant aeroacoustic source classification. The system comprises two steps: first, the calculation of acoustic properties based on spectral and spatial information; and second, the clustering of the sources based on these properties. Example data of two scaled airframe half-model wind tunnel measurements is evaluated based on deconvolved beamforming maps. A variety of aeroacoustic features are proposed that capture the characteristics and properties of the spectra. These features represent aeroacoustic properties that can be interpreted by both the machine and experts. The features are independent of absolute flow parameters such as the observed Mach numbers. This enables the proposed method to analyze data which is measured at different flow configurations. The aeroacoustic sources are clustered based on these features to determine similar or atypical behavior. For the given example data, the method results in source type clusters that correspond to human expert classification of the source types. Combined with a classification confidence and the mean feature values for each cluster, these clusters help aeroacoustic experts in classifying the identified sources and support them in analyzing their typical behavior and identifying spurious sources in-situ during measurement campaigns.