arXiv subjects

Martin Shepperd

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Shepperd.

18 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Preliminary Guidelines for Using and Evaluating GenAI Tools to Support Systematic Literature Reviews

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

The Replication Assessment Problem in Software Engineering

Background: Replication studies in software engineering are increasingly common, yet their interpretation remains uncertain and inconsistent because assessments frequently rely on loosely defined or ad hoc criteria. Aim: This study aims to document how replication study outcomes are currently assessed in empirical software engineering, identify problems arising from inconsistent criteria and propose a principled framework for meaningful evaluation. Method: We conducted a systematic review of replication studies, with the search covering recent empirical software engineering replications (2021--2025). For each study, we extracted the criteria used to assess replication outcomes and analysed these for heterogeneity, logical consistency, and alignment with established statistical principles. Results: A total of 10 replication studies were located. The analysis reveals substantial heterogeneity in assessment practices, with contradictory criteria applied to similar data, limited acknowledgement of measurement uncertainty, and an absence of shared standards. We propose a principled framework grounded in statistical, methodological, and measurement considerations, and demonstrate its application through worked examples. Conclusions: Adopting consistent and transparent assessment principles would reduce ambiguity, improve comparability, and support more reliable evidence accumulation in software engineering replication research.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

An Audit of Machine Learning Experiments on Software Defect Prediction

Background: Machine learning algorithms are widely used to predict defect prone software components. In this literature, computational experiments are the main means of evaluation, and the credibility of results depends on experimental design and reporting. Objective: This paper audits recent software defect prediction (SDP) studies by assessing their experimental design, analysis, and reporting practices against accepted norms from statistics, machine learning, and empirical software engineering. The aim is to characterise current practice and assess the reproducibility of published results. Method: We audited SDP studies indexed in SCOPUS between 2019 and 2023, focusing on design and analysis choices such as outcome measures, out of sample validation strategies, and the use of statistical inference. Nine study issues were evaluated. Reproducibility was assessed using the instrument proposed by Gonz\'alez Barahona and Robles. Results: The search identified approximately 1,585 SDP experiments published during the period. From these, we randomly sampled 101 papers, including 61 journal and 40 conference publications, with almost 50 percent behind paywalls. We observed substantial variation in research practice. The number of datasets ranged from 1 to 365, learners or learner variants from 1 to 34, and performance measures from 1 to 9. About 45 percent of studies applied formal statistical inference. Across the sample, we identified 427 issues, with a median of four per paper, and only one paper without issues. Reproducibility ranged from near complete to severely limited. We also identified two cases of tortured phrases and possible paper mill activity. Conclusions: Experimental design and reporting practices vary widely, and almost half of the studies provide insufficient detail to support reproduction. The audit indicates substantial scope for improvement.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews

Context: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to screen literature for systematic reviews (SRs), but the standard confusion-matrix metrics used to evaluate them can mislead under the imbalanced, cost-asymmetric conditions of screening. Objective: We develop and justify LLM4SCREENLIT-practical recommendations for researchers conducting LLM-screening evaluations and for editors and reviewers assessing such studies-differentiated by study type (retrospective benchmarking vs deployment for a specific SR). Method: Using Delgado-Chaves et al. (2025), an 18-LLM benchmark across three biomedical SRs, as a motivating example, we reviewed 28 additional papers and extracted their reported metrics. We propose a Weighted Matthews Correlation Coefficient (WMCC) that integrates MCC's chance-correction with asymmetric misclassification costs, and validated it on three software-engineering (SE) reanalyses, the largest covering 9 LLMs x 24 SE secondary studies (34,528 articles). Results: Across the 29 papers, only 10% reported MCC, only 24% reported full confusion matrices, and none of the five papers claiming workload savings priced false-negative cost. In the largest SE reanalysis, MCC and WMCC disagree on the best LLM in 55% of evaluable studies; in the most striking 9,695-article SE study, the Accuracy-best LLM loses 63.3% of relevant evidence (Lost Evidence), the MCC-best 43.9%, but the WMCC-best only 5.8%. Sensitivity analysis (median crossover at w~=2.7, all <7) supports w=10 as a conservative default. Conclusions: SR-screening evaluations should prioritize Lost Evidence and use cost-sensitive WMCC alongside MCC for ranking. Reporting must include the full confusion matrix and treat unclassifiable outputs as positives requiring human review. Designs should be leakage-aware, with non-LLM baselines when the study aims to inform SR practice and labels are available.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

"Estimating software project effort using analogies": Reflections after 28 years

Background: This invited paper is the result of an invitation to write a retrospective article on a "TSE most influential paper" as part of the journal's 50th anniversary. Objective: To reflect on the progress of software engineering prediction research using the lens of a selected, highly cited research paper and 28 years of hindsight. Methods: The paper examines (i) what was achieved, (ii) what has endured and (iii) what could have been done differently with the benefit of retrospection. Conclusions: While many specifics of software project effort prediction have evolved, key methodological issues remain relevant. The original study emphasised empirical validation with benchmarks, out-of-sample testing and data/tool sharing. Four areas for improvement are identified: (i) stronger commitment to Open Science principles, (ii) focus on effect sizes and confidence intervals, (iii) reporting variability alongside typical results and (iv) more rigorous examination of threats to validity.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Improving classifier-based effort-aware software defect prediction by reducing ranking errors

Context: Software defect prediction utilizes historical data to direct software quality assurance resources to potentially problematic components. Effort-aware (EA) defect prediction prioritizes more bug-like components by taking cost-effectiveness into account. In other words, it is a ranking problem, however, existing ranking strategies based on classification, give limited consideration to ranking errors. Objective: Improve the performance of classifier-based EA ranking methods by focusing on ranking errors. Method: We propose a ranking score calculation strategy called EA-Z which sets a lower bound to avoid near-zero ranking errors. We investigate four primary EA ranking strategies with 16 classification learners, and conduct the experiments for EA-Z and the other four existing strategies. Results: Experimental results from 72 data sets show EA-Z is the best ranking score calculation strategy in terms of Recall@20% and Popt when considering all 16 learners. For particular learners, imbalanced ensemble learner UBag-svm and UBst-rf achieve top performance with EA-Z. Conclusion: Our study indicates the effectiveness of reducing ranking errors for classifier-based effort-aware defect prediction. We recommend using EA-Z with imbalanced ensemble learning.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2022

Exploring Student Engagement and Outcomes: Experiences from Three Cycles of an Undergraduate Module

Many studies in educational data mining address specific learner groups, such as first-in-family to attend Higher Education, or focus on differences in characteristics such as gender or ethnicity, with the aim of predicting performance and designing interventions to improve outcomes. For Higher Education, this is reflected in significant interest in institutional-level analysis of student cohorts and in tools being promoted to Higher Education Institutions to support collection, integration and analysis of data. For those leading modules/units on degree programmes, however, the reality can be far removed from the seemingly well-supported and increasingly sophisticated approaches advocated in centrally-led data analysis. Module leaders often find themselves working with a number of student-data systems that are not integrated, may contain conflicting data and where significant effort is required to extract, clean and meaningfully analyse the data. This paper suggests that important lessons may be learned from experiences at module level in this context and from subsequent analysis of related data collected across multiple years. The changes made each year are described and a range of data analysis methods are applied, post hoc, to identify findings in relation to the four areas of focus. The key findings are that non-engagement with the Virtual Learning Environment in the first three weeks was the strongest predictor of failure and that early engagement correlated most strongly with final grade. General recommendations are drawn from the findings which should be valuable to module leaders in environments where access to integrated, up-to-date student information remains a day-to-day challenge, and insights will be presented into how such bottom-up activities might inform institutional/top-down planning in the use of relevant technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact on systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., approximately 8.3%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers, provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also a remarkable disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper over and above the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted. Conclusions: Unfortunately retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

Problem reports and team maturity in agile automotive software development

Background: Volvo Cars is pioneering an agile transformation on a large scale in the automotive industry. Social psychological aspects of automotive software development are an under-researched area in general. Few studies on team maturity or group dynamics can be found specifically in the automotive software engineering domain. Objective: This study is intended as an initial step to fill that gap by investigating the connection between issues and problem reports and team maturity. Method: We conducted a quantitative study with 84 participants from 14 teams and qualitatively validated the result with the Release Train Engineer having an overview of all the participating teams. Results: We find that the more mature a team is, the faster they seem to resolve issues as provided through external feedback, at least in the two initial team maturity stages. Conclusion: This study suggests that working on team dynamics might increase productivity in modern automotive software development departments, but this needs further investigation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

The impact of using biased performance metrics on software defect prediction research

Context: Software engineering researchers have undertaken many experiments investigating the potential of software defect prediction algorithms. Unfortunately, some widely used performance metrics are known to be problematic, most notably F1, but nevertheless F1 is widely used. Objective: To investigate the potential impact of using F1 on the validity of this large body of research. Method: We undertook a systematic review to locate relevant experiments and then extract all pairwise comparisons of defect prediction performance using F1 and the un-biased Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Results: We found a total of 38 primary studies. These contain 12,471 pairs of results. Of these, 21.95% changed direction when the MCC metric is used instead of the biased F1 metric. Unfortunately, we also found evidence suggesting that F1 remains widely used in software defect prediction research. Conclusions: We reiterate the concerns of statisticians that the F1 is a problematic metric outside of an information retrieval context, since we are concerned about both classes (defect-prone and not defect-prone units). This inappropriate usage has led to a substantial number (more than one fifth) of erroneous (in terms of direction) results. Therefore we urge researchers to (i) use an unbiased metric and (ii) publish detailed results including confusion matrices such that alternative analyses become possible.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation

Context: Software engineering has a problem in that when we empirically evaluate competing prediction systems we obtain conflicting results. Objective: To reduce the inconsistency amongst validation study results and provide a more formal foundation to interpret results with a particular focus on continuous prediction systems. Method: A new framework is proposed for evaluating competing prediction systems based upon (1) an unbiased statistic, Standardised Accuracy, (2) testing the result likelihood relative to the baseline technique of random 'predictions', that is guessing, and (3) calculation of effect sizes. Results: Previously published empirical evaluations of prediction systems are re-examined and the original conclusions shown to be unsafe. Additionally, even the strongest results are shown to have no more than a medium effect size relative to random guessing. Conclusions: Biased accuracy statistics such as MMRE are deprecated. By contrast this new empirical validation framework leads to meaningful results. Such steps will assist in performing future meta-analyses and in providing more robust and usable recommendations to practitioners.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2020

Assessing Software Defection Prediction Performance: Why Using the Matthews Correlation Coefficient Matters

Context: There is considerable diversity in the range and design of computational experiments to assess classifiers for software defect prediction. This is particularly so, regarding the choice of classifier performance metrics. Unfortunately some widely used metrics are known to be biased, in particular F1. Objective: We want to understand the extent to which the widespread use of the F1 renders empirical results in software defect prediction unreliable. Method: We searched for defect prediction studies that report both F1 and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). This enabled us to determine the proportion of results that are consistent between both metrics and the proportion that change. Results: Our systematic review identifies 8 studies comprising 4017 pairwise results. Of these results, the direction of the comparison changes in 23% of the cases when the unbiased MCC metric is employed. Conclusion: We find compelling reasons why the choice of classification performance metric matters, specifically the biased and misleading F1 metric should be deprecated.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2019

The Prevalence of Errors in Machine Learning Experiments

Context: Conducting experiments is central to research machine learning research to benchmark, evaluate and compare learning algorithms. Consequently it is important we conduct reliable, trustworthy experiments. Objective: We investigate the incidence of errors in a sample of machine learning experiments in the domain of software defect prediction. Our focus is simple arithmetical and statistical errors. Method: We analyse 49 papers describing 2456 individual experimental results from a previously undertaken systematic review comparing supervised and unsupervised defect prediction classifiers. We extract the confusion matrices and test for relevant constraints, e.g., the marginal probabilities must sum to one. We also check for multiple statistical significance testing errors. Results: We find that a total of 22 out of 49 papers contain demonstrable errors. Of these 7 were statistical and 16 related to confusion matrix inconsistency (one paper contained both classes of error). Conclusions: Whilst some errors may be of a relatively trivial nature, e.g., transcription errors their presence does not engender confidence. We strongly urge researchers to follow open science principles so errors can be more easily be detected and corrected, thus as a community reduce this worryingly high error rate with our computational experiments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

A Systematic Review of Unsupervised Learning Techniques for Software Defect Prediction

Background: Unsupervised machine learners have been increasingly applied to software defect prediction. It is an approach that may be valuable for software practitioners because it reduces the need for labeled training data. Objective: Investigate the use and performance of unsupervised learning techniques in software defect prediction. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review that identified 49 studies containing 2456 individual experimental results, which satisfied our inclusion criteria published between January 2000 and March 2018. In order to compare prediction performance across these studies in a consistent way, we (re-)computed the confusion matrices and employed the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) as our main performance measure. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that unsupervised models are comparable with supervised models for both within-project and cross-project prediction. Among the 14 families of unsupervised model, Fuzzy CMeans (FCM) and Fuzzy SOMs (FSOMs) perform best. In addition, where we were able to check, we found that almost 11% (262/2456) of published results (contained in 16 papers) were internally inconsistent and a further 33% (823/2456) provided insufficient details for us to check. Conclusion: Although many factors impact the performance of a classifier, e.g., dataset characteristics, broadly speaking, unsupervised classifiers do not seem to perform worse than the supervised classifiers in our review. However, we note a worrying prevalence of (i) demonstrably erroneous experimental results, (ii) undemanding benchmarks and (iii) incomplete reporting. We therefore encourage researchers to be comprehensive in their reporting.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

Inferencing into the void: problems with implicit populations Comments on `Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments'

I welcome the contribution from Falessi et al. [1] hereafter referred to as F++ , and the ensuing debate. Experimentation is an important tool within empirical software engineering, so how we select participants is clearly a relevant question. Moreover as F++ point out, the question is considerably more nuanced than the simple dichotomy it might appear to be at first sight. This commentary is structured as follows. In Section 2 I briefly summarise the arguments of F++ and comment on their approach. Next, in Section 3, I take a step back to consider the nature of representativeness in inferential arguments and the need for careful definition. Then I give three examples of using different types of participant to consider impact. I conclude by arguing, largely in agreement with F++, that the question of whether student participants are representative or not depends on the target population. However, we need to give careful consideration to defining that population and, in particular, not to overlook the representativeness of tasks and environment. This is facilitated by explicit description of the target populations.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

An Experimental Evaluation of a De-biasing Intervention for Professional Software Developers

CONTEXT: The role of expert judgement is essential in our quest to improve software project planning and execution. However, its accuracy is dependent on many factors, not least the avoidance of judgement biases, such as the anchoring bias, arising from being influenced by initial information, even when it's misleading or irrelevant. This strong effect is widely documented. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to replicate this anchoring bias using professionals and, novel in a software engineering context, explore de-biasing interventions through increasing knowledge and awareness of judgement biases. METHOD: We ran two series of experiments in company settings with a total of 410 software developers. Some developers took part in a workshop to heighten their awareness of a range of cognitive biases, including anchoring. Later, the anchoring bias was induced by presenting low or high productivity values, followed by the participants' estimates of their own project productivity. Our hypothesis was that the workshop would lead to reduced bias, i.e., work as a de-biasing intervention. RESULTS: The anchors had a large effect (robust Cohen's $d=1.19$) in influencing estimates. This was substantially reduced in those participants who attended the workshop (robust Cohen's $d=0.72$). The reduced bias related mainly to the high anchor. The de-biasing intervention also led to a threefold reduction in estimate variance. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of anchors upon judgement was substantial. Learning about judgement biases does appear capable of mitigating, although not removing, the anchoring bias. The positive effect of de-biasing through learning about biases suggests that it has value.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

Bad Smells in Software Analytics Papers

CONTEXT: There has been a rapid growth in the use of data analytics to underpin evidence-based software engineering. However the combination of complex techniques, diverse reporting standards and poorly understood underlying phenomena are causing some concern as to the reliability of studies. OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to provide guidance for producers and consumers of software analytics studies (computational experiments and correlation studies). METHOD: We propose using "bad smells", i.e., surface indications of deeper problems and popular in the agile software community and consider how they may be manifest in software analytics studies. RESULTS: We list 12 "bad smells" in software analytics papers (and show their impact by examples). CONCLUSIONS: We believe the metaphor of bad smell is a useful device. Therefore we encourage more debate on what contributes to the validty of software analytics studies (so we expect our list will mature over time).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2018

Replication studies considered harmful

CONTEXT: There is growing interest in establishing software engineering as an evidence-based discipline. To that end, replication is often used to gain confidence in empirical findings, as opposed to reproduction where the goal is showing the correctness, or validity of the published results. OBJECTIVE: To consider what is required for a replication study to confirm the original experiment and apply this understanding in software engineering. METHOD: Simulation is used to demonstrate why the prediction interval for confirmation can be surprisingly wide. This analysis is applied to three recent replications. RESULTS: It is shown that because the prediction intervals are wide, almost all replications are confirmatory, so in that sense there is no 'replication crisis', however, the contributions to knowledge are negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Replicating empirical software engineering experiments, particularly if they are under-powered or under-reported, is a waste of scientific resources. By contrast, meta-analysis is strongly advocated so that all relevant experiments are combined to estimate the population effect.

cs.SE↗