ArticlePloS one2025
In-depth exploration of software defects and self-admitted technical debt through cutting-edge deep learning techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most previous research focuses on finding Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD) or detecting bugs alone, rather to addressing the concurrent identification of both issues. These study investigations solely identify and classify the SATD or faults, without identifying or categorising bugs based on SATD. Furthermore, the majority of current methodologies do not incorporate contemporary deep learning techniques. This work presents an innovative method utilising deep learning techniques to discover and classify Self-Admitted Technical Debt (SATD) and to find defects in software comments associated with SATD. The proposed approach detects this issue and classifies and enhances the understanding and localization of defects. The methodology involves developing a deep learning model using diverse data from repositories, including Apache, Mozilla Firefox, and Eclipse. The chosen data set comprises projects, designated SATD examples, and bug instances, facilitating thorough model training and evaluation. The methodology comprises data analysis, preprocessing, and model training utilising deep learning architectures such as LSTM, BI-LSTM, GRU, and BI-GRU, with Transformer models like BERT and GPT-3, in conjunction with machine learning methods. The performance evaluation criteria, such as precision, recall, accuracy, and F1 score, illustrate the efficacy of the suggested method. Comparative assessment with existing methodologies underscores notable improvements, while cross-validation ensures model resilience. All deep learning models achieved an accuracy and precision of 0.98, and transformer models achieved slightly higher metrics. The GPT-3 achieved an overall accuracy of 0.984. We see that using the transfer learning approach the transformer model (GPT-3) outperformed the other as it achieved an overall accuracy of 0.96 and F1-Score of 0.96, precision of 0.96, and recall of 0.96, and deep learning models (LSTM, GRU) also give significant performance, but their accuracy is slightly lower than baseline model (Naive Bayes). The research has significant implications for software engineering, providing a comprehensive method for software quality assessment and maintenance. It enhances software architecture technical debt (SATD) and knowledge of bugs, as well as prioritization and resource allocation for software maintenance and evolution. The research's ramifications go beyond academia; it has a direct impact on business procedures and makes it easier to create software systems that are reliable and long-lasting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.