pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24968 · v1 · pith:ZLZYVCVVnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 💻 cs.LG

Training Dynamics of Neural Software Defect Predictors under Coupled Data-Quality Issues

Emmanuel Charleson Dapaah , Philip Makedonski , Jens Grabowski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 00:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords software defect predictionclass imbalanceclass overlaptraining dynamicsneural networksdata qualityempirical protocol
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coupled class imbalance and overlap create distinguishable patterns in neural training dynamics for software defect prediction.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates how class imbalance and class overlap interact when both affect the same dataset used to train neural networks for predicting software defects. Prior studies examined each issue separately and focused on final model accuracy, but this work runs controlled experiments that train the same multilayer perceptron under imbalance alone, overlap alone, and both together. Training data such as gradients, weights, and errors are recorded at every epoch, then compared with effect sizes and rule-based rules to build an analysis protocol. A sympathetic reader would care because software maintenance decisions rely on these predictors, and knowing how data problems shape the learning process inside the network could point to more reliable ways to handle noisy training data.

Core claim

By training a fixed MLP on class-level UBD datasets under imbalance-only, overlap-only, and joint conditions across five seeds, logging dynamics per epoch, monitoring fidelity with coupling ratios, and characterizing patterns via effect sizes, trajectories, sensitivity analyses, and rule-based classification, the study produces an interaction-aware empirical protocol and a candidate taxonomy of training-dynamics patterns for coupled data-quality issues in metric-based SDP.

What carries the argument

The interaction-aware empirical protocol that trains one fixed MLP under isolated and joint data-quality conditions, logs per-epoch dynamics, and applies effect-size plus rule-based analysis to separate coupled effects from single-issue effects.

If this is right

  • Coupled conditions produce training trajectories that differ measurably from those produced by imbalance or overlap in isolation.
  • Coupling ratios provide a practical way to verify that joint-condition experiments maintain the intended interaction strength.
  • Rule-based classification applied to trajectories can group observed patterns into a reusable taxonomy.
  • Sensitivity analyses show how the identified patterns change when the strength of imbalance or overlap is varied.
  • The resulting protocol supplies a repeatable method for studying data-quality interactions in other neural SDP setups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same logging and classification steps could be applied to non-neural models or to defect prediction tasks outside software engineering.
  • Early detection of coupling-specific patterns might allow training adjustments that reduce the impact of data quality problems before training finishes.
  • If the taxonomy holds on additional datasets, it could guide data-cleaning priorities by showing which combinations of issues most disrupt learning.
  • Extending the protocol to measure how patterns evolve after data fixes are applied would test whether the taxonomy predicts recovery behavior.

Load-bearing premise

That the patterns seen when imbalance and overlap occur together arise specifically from their coupling and can be reliably separated from patterns caused by either issue alone using the chosen analysis methods.

What would settle it

If the rule-based classification and effect-size comparisons yield no consistent, distinguishable categories between the joint condition and the two isolated conditions across the five random seeds.

read the original abstract

Context: Software defect prediction supports maintenance decisions such as testing prioritization, release-risk assessment, and quality monitoring. However, metric-based SDP datasets often contain coupled data-quality issues, especially class imbalance and class overlap. Prior work has mainly measured their impact through endpoint performance, while recent evidence suggests that such issues may also appear in neural training dynamics (gradients, weights, biases, error trajectories). However, these studies examine issues in isolation, leaving open how internal neural network training patterns manifest when data quality issues are coupled. Objective: We investigate how training-dynamics patterns from class imbalance, overlap, and their coupling can be characterized under interaction-aware conditions in deep learning-based SDP. Method: We conduct a controlled intervention study on class-level UBD datasets, training a fixed MLP under imbalance-only, overlap-only, and joint conditions across five seeds. Training dynamics are logged per epoch; fidelity is monitored via coupling ratios. Patterns are characterized using effect sizes, trajectories, sensitivity analyses, and rule-based classification. Expected contribution: The study will produce an interaction-aware empirical protocol and a candidate taxonomy of training-dynamics patterns for coupled data-quality issues in metric-based SDP.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a controlled empirical protocol to characterize training dynamics (gradients, weights, biases, error trajectories) of a fixed MLP for metric-based software defect prediction under class imbalance, class overlap, and their coupling. It specifies intervention on class-level UBD datasets across imbalance-only, overlap-only, and joint conditions with five random seeds, per-epoch logging, fidelity monitoring via coupling ratios, and pattern analysis via effect sizes, trajectories, sensitivity analyses, and rule-based classification, with the goal of producing an interaction-aware protocol and candidate taxonomy.

Significance. If executed as described and the resulting patterns prove distinguishable and attributable to coupling, the work would address a documented gap in SDP literature by shifting focus from endpoint performance to internal neural training dynamics under realistic coupled data-quality issues. This could inform more robust model training practices and extend isolated-issue analyses in prior studies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Method: The manuscript is framed entirely as a planned study ('We conduct a controlled intervention study', 'The study will produce') with no executed experiments, results, data, or validation of the protocol. This renders the central expected contribution—an interaction-aware taxonomy—unsupported, as the soundness of the rule-based classification and generalizability claims cannot be assessed without evidence that the protocol yields distinguishable patterns under the joint condition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for identifying the framing issue. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Method: The manuscript is framed entirely as a planned study ('We conduct a controlled intervention study', 'The study will produce') with no executed experiments, results, data, or validation of the protocol. This renders the central expected contribution—an interaction-aware taxonomy—unsupported, as the soundness of the rule-based classification and generalizability claims cannot be assessed without evidence that the protocol yields distinguishable patterns under the joint condition.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript is written as a description of a planned controlled intervention study and does not include executed experiments, logged training dynamics, or empirical results. The primary contribution is therefore the specification of the intervention protocol (conditions, logging, fidelity monitoring via coupling ratios, effect-size analysis, and rule-based classification procedure). The interaction-aware taxonomy is explicitly labeled as a candidate outcome of the protocol rather than a derived result. We will revise the abstract, objective, method, and expected-contribution sections to state unambiguously that the work proposes and justifies the protocol, while removing any implication that patterns have been observed or that the taxonomy has been validated. This revision aligns the stated contributions with the content that is actually provided. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Empirical execution of the protocol, per-epoch training-dynamics data, and resulting pattern analysis needed to demonstrate distinguishable patterns or validate the candidate taxonomy

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical protocol proposal with no derivation chain

full rationale

The manuscript is a methods proposal for a controlled intervention study on class-level UBD datasets using a fixed MLP, per-epoch logging, effect-size analysis, and rule-based classification. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The objective and expected contribution are forward-looking statements about producing a protocol and taxonomy; they do not reduce to inputs by construction or via any of the enumerated circularity patterns. This is a standard non-finding for purely descriptive empirical protocols.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is an empirical study description without mathematical derivations or models, so the ledger contains no entries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5740 in / 1087 out tokens · 42109 ms · 2026-06-26T00:23:00.233654+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Public Unified Bug Dataset for Java,

    R. Ferenc, Z. T ´oth, G. Lad ´anyi, I. Siket, and T. Gyim ´othy, “A Public Unified Bug Dataset for Java,” inProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering. Oulu Finland: ACM, Oct. 2018, pp. 12–21. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3273934.3273936

    work page doi:10.1145/3273934.3273936 2018

  2. [2]

    Software defect prediction: future directions and challenges,

    Z. Li, J. Niu, and X.-Y . Jing, “Software defect prediction: future directions and challenges,” vol. 31, no. 1, p. 19. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-024-00424-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10515-024-00424-1

  3. [3]

    A comparative study on the effect of data imbalance on software defect prediction,

    Y . Liu, W. Zhang, G. Qin, and J. Zhao, “A comparative study on the effect of data imbalance on software defect prediction,”Procedia Computer Science, vol. 214, pp. 1603–1616, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877050922020610

    2022

  4. [4]

    Impact of unbalanced classification on the performance of software defect prediction models,

    K. J. Eldho, “Impact of unbalanced classification on the performance of software defect prediction models,” vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 237–242. [Online]. Available: https://indjst.org/

  5. [5]

    A Comprehensive Investigation of the Impact of Class Overlap on Software Defect Prediction,

    L. Gong, H. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Wei, and Z. Huang, “A Comprehensive Investigation of the Impact of Class Overlap on Software Defect Prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2440–2458, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9944157/

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Evaluating the interactions between class overlap and class imbalance for software defect prediction,

    Y . Zhang, N. Liu, Y . Zhao, J. Fan, and L. Gong, “Evaluating the interactions between class overlap and class imbalance for software defect prediction,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 296, p. 129067, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0957417425026843

    2026

  7. [7]

    Assessing the significant impact of concept drift in software defect prediction,

    M. A. Kabir, J. W. Keung, K. E. Bennin, and M. Zhang, “Assessing the significant impact of concept drift in software defect prediction,” in2019 IEEE 43rd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 1, 2019, pp. 53–58

    2019

  8. [8]

    The impact of class rebalancing techniques on the performance and interpretation of defect prediction models,

    C. Tantithamthavorn, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, “The impact of class rebalancing techniques on the performance and interpretation of defect prediction models,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1200–1219, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Data quality issues in software fault prediction: a systematic literature review,

    K. Bhandari, K. Kumar, and A. L. Sangal, “Data quality issues in software fault prediction: a systematic literature review,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 7839–7908, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10462-022-10371-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-022-10371-6 2023

  10. [10]

    The effect of data complexity on classifier performance,

    J. Eberlein, D. Rodriguez, and R. Harrison, “The effect of data complexity on classifier performance,”Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 16, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10664-024-10554-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-024-10554-5 2025

  11. [11]

    InProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)(ICSE ’22)

    J. Cao, M. Li, X. Chen, M. Wen, Y . Tian, B. Wu, and S.-C. Cheung, “Deepfd: automated fault diagnosis and localization for deep learning programs,” inProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ser. ICSE ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, p. 573–585. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3510003.3510099 2022

  12. [12]

    Towards understanding the impact of data bugs on deep learning models in software engineering,

    M. B. Shah, M. M. Rahman, and F. Khomh, “Towards understanding the impact of data bugs on deep learning models in software engineering,” Empirical Softw. Engg., vol. 30, no. 6, Sep. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-025-10717-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-025-10717-y 2025

  13. [13]

    Caglayan, E

    B. Caglayan, E. Kocaguneli, J. Krall, F. Peters, and B. Turhan,The PROMISE repository of empirical software engineering data, 01 2012

    2012

  14. [14]

    A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering,

    T. Hall, S. Beecham, D. Bowes, D. Gray, and S. Counsell, “A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1276–1304, Nov. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6035727/

    arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Researcher bias: The use of machine learning in software defect prediction,

    M. Shepperd, D. Bowes, and T. Hall, “Researcher bias: The use of machine learning in software defect prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 603–616, 2014

    2014

  16. [16]

    SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique,

    N. V . Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique,” vol. 16, pp. 321–357. [Online]. Available: https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair/article/ view/10302

  17. [17]

    Yen and Y .-S

    S.-J. Yen and Y .-S. Lee,Under-Sampling Approaches for Improving Prediction of the Minority Class in an Imbalanced Dataset. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 731–740. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37256-1 89

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37256-1 2006

  18. [18]

    When data quality issues collide: A large-scale empirical study of co-occurring data quality issues in software defect prediction,

    E. C. Dapaah and J. Grabowski, “When data quality issues collide: A large-scale empirical study of co-occurring data quality issues in software defect prediction,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17460

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A software defect prediction method that simultaneously addresses class overlap and noise issues after oversampling,

    R. Wang, F. Liu, and Y . Bai, “A software defect prediction method that simultaneously addresses class overlap and noise issues after oversampling,”Electronics, vol. 13, no. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/20/3976

    2024

  20. [20]

    Class Imbalances versus Class Overlapping: An Analysis of a Learning System Behavior,

    R. C. Prati, G. E. A. P. A. Batista, and M. C. Monard, “Class Imbalances versus Class Overlapping: An Analysis of a Learning System Behavior,” inMICAI 2004: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, J. Van Leeuwen, R. Monroy, G. Arroyo- Figueroa, L. E. Sucar, and H. Sossa, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, vol. 2...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24694-7 2004

  21. [21]

    How complex is your classification problem? a survey on measuring classification complexity,

    A. C. Lorena, L. P. F. Garcia, J. Lehmann, M. C. P. Souto, and T. K. Ho, “How complex is your classification problem? a survey on measuring classification complexity,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 52, no. 5, Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3347711

    work page doi:10.1145/3347711 2019

  22. [22]

    An experiment with the edited nearest-neighbor rule,

    I. Tomek, “An experiment with the edited nearest-neighbor rule,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. SMC-6, no. 6, pp. 448–452, 1976. [23]Fundamentals of Factorial Designs. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2006, pp. 9–48. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 0-387-37344-6 2

    1976

  23. [23]

    Cohen,Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed

    J. Cohen,Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates