Cited by 89Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Can Better Identifier Splitting Techniques Help Feature Location?

Dit, Bogdan, Guerrouj, Latifa, Poshyvanyk, Denys, Antoniol, Giuliano·2011·2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension

Abstract

The paper presents an exploratory study of two feature location techniques utilizing three strategies for splitting identifiers: Camel Case, Samurai and manual splitting of identifiers. The main research question that we ask in this study is if we had a perfect technique for splitting identifiers, would it still help improve accuracy of feature location techniques applied in different scenarios and settings? In order to answer this research question we investigate two feature location techniques, one based on Information Retrieval and the other one based on the combination of Information Retrieval and dynamic analysis, for locating bugs and features using various configurations of preprocessing strategies on two open-source systems, Rhino and jEdit. The results of an extensive empirical evaluation reveal that feature location techniques using Information Retrieval can benefit from better preprocessing algorithms in some cases, and that their improvement in effectiveness while using manual splitting over state-of-the-art approaches is statistically significant in those cases. However, the results for feature location technique using the combination of Information Retrieval and dynamic analysis do not show any improvement while using manual splitting, indicating that any preprocessing technique will suffice if execution data is available. Overall, our findings outline potential benefits of putting additional research efforts into defining more sophisticated source code preproce…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icpc.2011.47

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Random Forest is an effective ensemble learning method for classification, relying on decision tree learning and bagging.

    “Random Forest is one of the most effective ensemble learning method for classification, which relies on decision tree learning and bagging [17].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dit, B., Guerrouj, L., Poshyvanyk, D., & Antoniol, G.
Affiliations
  • William & Mary (US)
  • Polytechnique Montréal (CA)
Venue
2011 IEEE 19th International Conference on Program Comprehension
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-06
Pages
11-20
OpenAlex
W2147296306
Cited by
89
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) (publishedVersion)
  • PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
feature location, source code preprocessing, samurai, information retrieval, dynamic analysis, bug localization, rhinoceros, jEdit, open source software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review