Tim Menzies, NC State University, presents at the 2015 HPCC Systems Engineering Summit Community Day. For Big Data applications, there is a lack of any gold standards for "good analysis" or methods to assess our certification programs. Hence, we are still in the dark about whether or not our human analysts are making the best use possible of the tools of Big Data. While much progress has been made in the systems aspects of Big Data, certain critical human-centered aspects remain an open issue. Regardless of the sophistication of the analysis tools and environment, all that architecture can still be used incorrectly by users. If this issue was confined to a small number of inexperienced users, then it could be addressed via process improvements such as better training. But is it? What do we know about our analysts? Where are the studies that mine the people doing the data miners? This presentation offers some preliminary results on tools that combine ECL with other methods that recognize the code generated by experienced or inexperienced developers. While the results are preliminary, they do raise the possibility that we can better characterize what it means to be experienced (or inexperienced) at Big Data applications.

1. Big Data:
the weakest link
Vivek Nair, Tim Menzies
{vivekaxl,tim.menzies}@gmail.com
HPCC Eng. Summit - Sept 29, 2015

2. Where is the weakest link?
2

3. Where is the weakest link?
3

4. Where is the weakest link?
4

5. Where is the weakest link?
5

6. Where is the weakest link?
6

7. Premise of Big Data
Analysis is a “systems” task?
• Better conclusions =
same algorithms + more
data + more cpu
• If so, then …
– No role for human error
– All insight is auto-generated
from CPUs.
Analysis is a “human” task?
• Current results on “software
analytics”
– A human-intensive process
7

8. Q: Is Big Data a “Systems” or “Human”-task?
A: Yes
8

9. Code used in my
last paper
(1100 LOC of Python
calling scikitlearn)
9

10. Use a Higher-Level languages?
• ECL solves this problem?
• But if you can write it quick,
– you can write it wrong, quick.
10

11. Is this really a problem?
• Q: What would we expect
to see if…
– Top experts, publishing in top
journals
– Many of the same data sets
– 8 years of trying
• A:
– Perhaps some upward
progress
– Perhaps a little less variance
11
So, what do
we see?

12. • Software analytics
– Defect prediction
– Many of the same learners,
– Many of the same data sets
• 42 papers,
top journals,
• 23 author groups
• 2002 to 2010
• Y-axis measures
mean performance
12
Researcher Bias: The Use of Machine Learning in Software Defect Prediction, Martin Shepperd,
David Bowes, and Tracy Hall, IEEE TRANS on Soft. Eng. , 40(6), JUNE 2014

13. 13
http://fivethirt
yeight.com/fe
atures/science
-isnt-broken/

14. A little theory
• James D. Herbsleb, CMU
• Socio-Technical Coordination
• A predictor for higher defects:
– Groups of programmers
working on similar functions
then,
– but do not sharing that
expertise
14

15. Q: How to find expertise groups
within the HPCC community?
A: using data mining
15

16. Static features and commit history
can act as a cue for expertise
● Our motivation
o “relation between embodiment and language
acquisition by locating the ‘minimal set of
necessary features’ that enable language of any
kind to be learned” - The Philosophy of Expertise
16

17. Software analytics results:
learn predictors for expertise
● “...counts of the cumulative number of different
developers changing a file over its lifetime can help
to improve defect predictions…”[1]
● “Quantify person's experience with a part of code
using change history of the code”[2]
● “RevFinder, a file location-based code-reviewer
recommendation approach” [3]
● “30% of its code entities has more than 0.3 of
similarity with at least one developer vocabulary”
[4]
17
[1] Ostrand, Thomas J., Elaine J. Weyuker, and Robert M. Bell.
"Programmer-based fault prediction." Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering.
ACM, 2010.
[2] Mockus, Audris, and James D. Herbsleb. "Expertise browser: a
quantitative approach to identifying expertise." Proceedings of the
24th international conference on software engineering. ACM, 2002.
[3] Thongtanunam, Patanamon, et al. "Who should review my code? A
file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for
Modern Code Review."Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering
(SANER), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on. IEEE, 2015.
[4] Santos, Katyusco de F., Dalton DS Guerrero, and Jorge CA de
Figueiredo. "Using Developers Contributions on Software Vocabularies
to Identify Experts."Information Technology-New Generations (ITNG),
2015 12th International Conference on. IEEE, 2015.

18. Q: And what data mining suite will we
use to mine data about programmers?
• A: need you ask?
18

19. Source Code
19

20. But what are we clustering?
Developer products
• Lightweight parsing of source code
• Developers profiles, accessed
via social media sites

21. Languages Used

22. Skill Set (self promotion)

23. Data processing
1. Github repos (for code) ➔ Social media(for years of work)
2. Static code analysis: frequency counts of AST features
(e.g. count loops, returns, var comparisons, map, etc )
3. Bayes classifier
Early
career
Later career

24. Classification
- Features: Nodes of AST
- Algorithms Used: Simple Cart, Random
Forest, Naive Bayes etc.
- Can distinguish expert from novice
programmers
•precision= 78% early career
•precision = 74% later career
* Using Weka

25. Current status
The good news
• Can auto-find groups of
better programmers
• Can do that for very large
data sets
– The ECL advantages
The other news
• Seeking larger data sets
• Talking to HackerRank
• Looking at ways to
instrument the HPCC
forums
– Matchmaker tools
– Affinity groups
25

26. Where is the weakest link?
26

27. Where is the weakest link?
27

28. We can make that link stronger
28

29. Acknowledgements:
Thanks to funding from LexisNexis
29