arXiv subjects

Amirali Rayegan

Publications and source records attributed to Amirali Rayegan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Is Model Instability just Noise to be Tolerated or a Property that can be Managed?

In software analytics, rerunning the same analysis twice often yields different models and conclusions. This reduces trust in the model and limits its use. We find that model instability is a major problem. Across 127 multi-objective SE optimization problems (12,700 test cases), repeated runs of a state-of-the-art optimizer agree on only 13.7% of test cases, even under improved settings. We argue that this instability is not merely noise to tolerate, but a property that can be measured and managed. By adjusting how labels are spent, how complex the models become, and how splits are scored, we obtain models that agree 4.8 times as often as the default configuration. The standard deviation of optimization error falls by 22% on average (mean std 17.4 to 13.6), while recommendation quality improves rather than degrades. In terms of quality, the refined settings are statistically top-ranked on 119 of 127 datasets, compared to 74 for the defaults. We then test causal and data-locality interventions and find that they help only partially, suggesting a residual stability floor. Our evidence suggests there are fundamental limits to stability set by the data itself (noise, scarce labels, proxy objectives, and the many near-equivalent models a dataset admits). We conclude that instability should be treated as a standard evaluation axis in SE optimization, which should be routinely measured, reported alongside performance, and used to calibrate trust in any single run. The methods in this paper provide a baseline against which future efforts to reduce SBSE instability can be judged. To support open science, we offer the following reproduction package: https://tinyurl.com/Model-Instability

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Can Causality Cure Confusion Caused By Correlation (in Software Analytics)?

Background: Symbolic models, particularly decision trees, are widely used in software engineering for explainable analytics in defect prediction, configuration tuning, and software quality assessment. Most of these models rely on correlational split criteria, such as variance reduction or information gain, which identify statistical associations but cannot imply causation between X and Y. Recent empirical studies in software engineering show that both correlational models and causal discovery algorithms suffer from pronounced instability. This instability arises from two complementary issues: 1-Correlation-based methods conflate association with causation. 2-Causal discovery algorithms rely on heuristic approximations to cope with the NP-hard nature of structure learning, causing their inferred graphs to vary widely under minor input perturbations. Together, these issues undermine trust, reproducibility, and the reliability of explanations in real-world SE tasks. Objective: This study investigates whether incorporating causality-aware split criteria into symbolic models can improve their stability and robustness, and whether such gains come at the cost of predictive or optimization performance. We additionally examine how the stability of human expert judgments compares to that of automated models. Method: Using 120+ multi-objective optimization tasks from the MOOT repository of multi-objective optimization tasks, we evaluate stability through a preregistered bootstrap-ensemble protocol that measures variance with win-score assignments. We compare the stability of human causal assessments with correlation-based decision trees (EZR). We would also compare the causality-aware trees, which leverage conditional-entropy split criteria and confounder filtering. Stability and performance differences are analyzed using statistical methods (variance, Gini Impurity, KS test, Cliff's delta)

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

MOOT: a Repository of Many Multi-Objective Optimization Tasks

Software engineers must make decisions that trade off competing goals (faster vs. cheaper, secure vs. usable, accurate vs. interpretable, etc.). Despite MSR's proven techniques for exploring such goals, researchers still struggle with these trade-offs. Similarly, industrial practitioners deliver sub-optimal products since they lack the tools needed to explore these trade-offs. To address this, MOOT (http://tiny.cc/moot) is a repository of many SE multi-objective optimization tasks. MOOT's 120+ tasks cover software configuration, cloud tuning, project health, process modeling, hyperparameter optimization, and more. Sample scripts for reading MOOT and generating baseline results are available -- just clone the repository and run the sample rqx.sh files (from tiny.cc/moot0). To the best of our knowledge, MOOT is the largest and most varied collection of real multi-objective optimization tasks in SE. We note that MOOT's novelty is infrastructural, not algorithmic-we contribute curated data and research enablement, not new optimization methods. MOOT enables harder and more credible research. MOOT lets us replace studies on toy problems (or just half a dozen hand-picked examples) with case studies on 120+ examples. Such studies could focus on stability, sample efficiency, failure modes, cross-domain generality, or many other questions (see list in this document).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Minimal Data, Maximum Clarity: A Heuristic for Explaining Optimization

Efficient, interpretable optimization is a critical but underexplored challenge in software engineering, where practitioners routinely face vast configuration spaces and costly, error-prone labeling processes. This paper introduces EZR, a novel and modular framework for multi-objective optimization that unifies active sampling, learning, and explanation within a single, lightweight pipeline. Departing from conventional wisdom, our Maximum Clarity Heuristic demonstrates that using less (but more informative) data can yield optimization models that are both effective and deeply understandable. EZR employs an active learning strategy based on Naive Bayes sampling to efficiently identify high-quality configurations with a fraction of the labels required by fully supervised approaches. It then distills optimization logic into concise decision trees, offering transparent, actionable explanations for both global and local decision-making. Extensive experiments across 60 real-world datasets establish that EZR reliably achieves over 90% of the best-known optimization performance in most cases, while providing clear, cohort-based rationales that surpass standard attribution-based explainable AI (XAI) methods (LIME, SHAP, BreakDown) in clarity and utility. These results endorse "less but better"; it is both possible and often preferable to use fewer (but more informative) examples to generate label-efficient optimization and explanations in software systems. To support transparency and reproducibility, all code and experimental materials are publicly available at https://github.com/amiiralii/Minimal-Data-Maximum-Clarity.

cs.SE↗