Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 715

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance

Kamei, Yasutaka, Shihab, Emad, Adams, Bram, Hassan, Ahmed E., Mockus, Audris, Sinha, Anand, Ubayashi, Naoyasu·2013·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

Defect prediction models are a well-known technique for identifying defect-prone files or packages such that practitioners can allocate their quality assurance efforts (e.g., testing and code reviews). However, once the critical files or packages have been identified, developers still need to spend considerable time drilling down to the functions or even code snippets that should be reviewed or tested. This makes the approach too time consuming and impractical for large software systems. Instead, we consider defect prediction models that focus on identifying defect-prone (“risky”) software changes instead of files or packages. We refer to this type of quality assurance activity as “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance,” because developers can review and test these risky changes while they are still fresh in their minds (i.e., at check-in time). To build a change risk model, we use a wide range of factors based on the characteristics of a software change, such as the number of added lines, and developer experience. A large-scale study of six open source and five commercial projects from multiple domains shows that our models can predict whether or not a change will lead to a defect with an average accuracy of 68 percent and an average recall of 64 percent. Furthermore, when considering the effort needed to review changes, we find that using only 20 percent of the effort it would take to inspect all changes, we can identify 35 percent of all defect-inducing changes. Our findings indicate that “Just-In-Time Quality Assurance” may provide an effort-reducing way to focus on the most risky changes and thus reduce the costs of developing high-quality software.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2012.70

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 715

Metadata

Authors
Kamei, Y., Shihab, E., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E., Mockus, A., Sinha, A., & Ubayashi, N.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2013-06
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
757-773
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
OpenAlex
W2147386665
Cited by
715
References
2
FWCI
27.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2012.70
The paper
Kamei, Y., Shihab, E., Adams, B., Hassan, A. E., Mockus, A., Sinha, A., & Ubayashi, N. (2013). A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2012.70

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.