Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bayesian Data Analysis in Empirical Software Engineering Research

Furia, Carlo Alberto, Feldt, Robert, Torkar, Richard·2019·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
DOI 10.1109/tse.2019.2935974
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Statistics comes in two main flavors: frequentist and Bayesian. For historical and technical reasons, frequentist statistics have traditionally dominated empirical data analysis, and certainly remain prevalent in empirical software engineering. This situation is unfortunate because frequentist statistics suffer from a number of shortcomings-such as lack of flexibility and results that are unintuitive and hard to interpret-that curtail their effectiveness when dealing with the heterogeneous data that is increasingly available for empirical analysis of software engineering practice. In this paper, we pinpoint these shortcomings, and present Bayesian data analysis techniques that provide tangible benefits-as they can provide clearer results that are simultaneously robust and nuanced. After a short, high-level introduction to the basic tools of Bayesian statistics, we present the reanalysis of two empirical studies on the effectiveness of automatically generated tests and the performance of programming languages. By contrasting the original frequentist analyses with our new Bayesian analyses, we demonstrate the concrete advantages of the latter. To conclude we advocate a more prominent role for Bayesian statistical techniques in empirical software engineering research and practice.

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.2019.2935974

Cites

108 of 108 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

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 10.1201/b16018 · DOI · Paper page
  2. gelman, 2016, The problems with $p$p-values are not just with $p$p-values, The Amer Statistician
  3. downey, 2013, Bayesian Thinking
  4. dillon, 0, Proc 38th Int Conf Softw Eng
  5. jalote, 2014, Proc 36th Int Conf Softw Eng
  6. 10.1145/2884781.2884783 · DOI
  7. jeffreys, 1998, Theory of Probability
  8. notkin, 0, Proc 35th Int Conf Softw Eng
  9. uchitel, 0, Proc 39th Int Conf Softw Eng
  10. 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 · DOI · Paper page
  11. bertolino, 2015, Proc 37th IEEE/ACM Int Conf Softw Eng, 1
  12. 10.2307/2331554 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Furia, C. A., Feldt, R., & Torkar, R.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2019
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 0098-5589
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
DOI
10.1109/tse.2019.2935974
Cited by
42
References
108
Licence

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

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.