Search for: All records

Code intelligence tools such as GitHub Copilot have begun to bridge the gap between natural language and programming language. A frequent software development task is the management of technical debts, which are suboptimal solutions or unaddressed issues which hinder future software development. Developers have been found to ``self-admit'' technical debts (SATD) in software artifacts such as source code comments. Thus, is it possible that the information present in these comments can enhance code generative prompts to repay the described SATD? Or, does the inclusion of such comments instead cause code generative tools to reproduce the harmful symptoms of described technical debt? Does the modification of SATD impact this reaction? Despite the heavy maintenance costs caused by technical debt and the recent improvements of code intelligence tools, no prior works have sought to incorporate SATD towards prompt engineering. Inspired by this, this paper contributes and analyzes a dataset consisting of 36,381 TODO comments in the latest available revisions of their respective 102,424 repositories, from which we sample and manually generate 1,140 code bodies using GitHub Copilot. Our experiments show that GitHub Copilot can generate code with the symptoms of SATD, both prompted and unprompted. Moreover, we demonstrate the tool's ability to automatically repay SATD under different circumstances and qualitatively investigate the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful comments. Finally, we discuss gaps in which GitHub Copilot's successors and future researchers can improve upon code intelligence tasks to facilitate AI-assisted software maintenance. 

In recent years, many incidents have been reported where machine learning models exhibited discrimination among people based on race, sex, age, etc. Research has been conducted to measure and mitigate unfairness in machine learning models. For a machine learning task, it is a common practice to build a pipeline that includes an ordered set of data preprocessing stages followed by a classifier. However, most of the research on fairness has considered a single classifier based prediction task. What are the fairness impacts of the preprocessing stages in machine learning pipeline? Furthermore, studies showed that often the root cause of unfairness is ingrained in the data itself, rather than the model. But no research has been conducted to measure the unfairness caused by a specific transformation made in the data preprocessing stage. In this paper, we introduced the causal method of fairness to reason about the fairness impact of data preprocessing stages in ML pipeline. We leveraged existing metrics to define the fairness measures of the stages. Then we conducted a detailed fairness evaluation of the preprocessing stages in 37 pipelines collected from three different sources. Our results show that certain data transformers are causing the model to exhibit unfairness. We identified a number of fairness patterns in several categories of data transformers. Finally, we showed how the local fairness of a preprocessing stage composes in the global fairness of the pipeline. We used the fairness composition to choose appropriate downstream transformer that mitigates unfairness in the machine learning pipeline. 

Machine learning models are increasingly being used in important decision-making software such as approving bank loans, recommending criminal sentencing, hiring employees, and so on. It is important to ensure the fairness of these models so that no discrimination is made between different groups in a protected attribute (e.g., race, sex, age) while decision making. Algorithms have been developed to measure unfairness and mitigate them to a certain extent. In this paper, we have focused on the empirical evaluation of fairness and mitigations on real-world machine learning models. We have created a benchmark of 40 top-rated models from Kaggle used for 5 different tasks, and then using a comprehensive set of fairness metrics evaluated their fairness. Then, we have applied 7 mitigation techniques on these models and analyzed the fairness, mitigation results, and impacts on performance. We have found that some model optimization techniques result in inducing unfairness in the models. On the other hand, although there are some fairness control mechanisms in machine learning libraries, they are not documented. The mitigation algorithm also exhibit common patterns such as mitigation in the post-processing is often costly (in terms of performance) and mitigation in the pre-processing stage is preferred in most cases. We have also presented different trade-off choices of fairness mitigation decisions. Our study suggests future research directions to reduce the gap between theoretical fairness aware algorithms and the software engineering methods to leverage them in practice. 

Machine learning models are increasingly being used in important decision-making software such as approving bank loans, recommending criminal sentencing, hiring employees, and so on. It is important to ensure the fairness of these models so that no discrimination is made based on protected attribute (e.g., race, sex, age) while decision making. Algorithms have been developed to measure unfairness and mitigate them to a certain extent. In this paper, we have focused on the empirical evaluation of fairness and mitigations on real-world machine learning models. We have created a benchmark of 40 top-rated models from Kaggle used for 5 different tasks, and then using a comprehensive set of fairness metrics, evaluated their fairness. Then, we have applied 7 mitigation techniques on these models and analyzed the fairness, mitigation results, and impacts on performance. We have found that some model optimization techniques result in inducing unfairness in the models. On the other hand, although there are some fairness control mechanisms in machine learning libraries, they are not documented. The mitigation algorithm also exhibit common patterns such as mitigation in the post-processing is often costly (in terms of performance) and mitigation in the pre-processing stage is preferred in most cases. We have also presented different trade-off choices of fairness mitigation decisions. Our study suggests future research directions to reduce the gap between theoretical fairness aware algorithms and the software engineering methods to leverage them in practice.