Email Content Analyzer Classifies Developer Discussions
•
1 like•2,073 views
The document presents an approach called DECA (Development Email Content Analyzer) that uses natural language parsing to classify paragraphs in development emails according to intentions. DECA was evaluated on emails from two open source projects. It achieved good results for classifying email content, outperforming traditional machine learning techniques in terms of precision, recall and F-measure. The study aimed to understand how natural language parsing could help recognize informative text fragments in development discussions to guide software maintenance and evolution.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (17)
Similar to Email Content Analyzer Classifies Developer Discussions
Similar to Email Content Analyzer Classifies Developer Discussions (20)
More from Sebastiano Panichella
More from Sebastiano Panichella (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (19)
Email Content Analyzer Classifies Developer Discussions
- 1. Development Emails Content Analyzer: Intention Mining in Developer Discussions Andrea Di Sorbo Sebastiano Panichella Corrado Visaggio Massimiliano Di Penta Gerardo Canfora Harald Gall
- 2. Outline Context: Wri5en Development Discussions Case Study: Development Mailing List of 2 Open Source Projects Results: Automatic Classification of Relevant Contents in Developers’ Communication 2
- 3. Open Source (OS) and Industrial Projects 3
- 4. Open Source (OS) and Industrial Projects 4
- 5. Open Source (OS) and Industrial Projects 5
- 6. Open Source (OS) and Industrial Projects 6
- 7. Development Communication Means Recommender systems: -‐‑ Bug Triaging [1] -‐‑ Suggest Mentors [2] -‐‑ Code re-‐‑documentation [3] -‐‑ Etc. [1] Anvik et al. “Who should fix this bug?”. [2] Canfora et al. “Who is going to mentor newcomers in open source projects?” [3] Panichella et al. “Mining source code descriptions from developer communications” 7
- 8. Development Communication Means 8
- 9. Development Communication Means [1] Bacchelli et al. “Content classification of development emails”. [2] Cerulo et al. “A Hidden Markov Model to detect coded information islands in free text.” 9
- 10. Different Kinds of Data Structured Semi-‐‑Structured Unstructured 10
- 11. A Considerable Effort for Developers Many messages Developers get lost in unnecessary details missing potential useful information… 11
- 12. Previous Work 12 Hana et al. “…Lazy” RTC occurs when a core developer post a change to a mailing lists and nobody responds, it assumed that other developers reviewed the code…”
- 13. Previous Work Approaches for: -‐‑ Generating summaries of emails. à Lam et al. , à Rambow et al. -‐‑ Generating summaries of bug reports. à Rastkar et al. 13
- 14. Different Purposes Feature requests Bug disclosures Project Management 14
- 15. DECA (Development Email Content Analyzer) An approach to Classify Paragraphs According to Intentions hSp://www.ifi.uzh.ch/seal/people/panichella/tools/DECA.html 15
- 16. Why use NLP for Classifying Paragraphs According to Intentions? 16
- 17. Example i. We could use a leaky bucket algorithm to limit the bandwidth ii. The leaky bucket algorithm fails in limiting the bandwidth 17
- 18. i. We could use a leaky bucket algorithm to limit the bandwidth ii. The leaky bucket algorithm fails in limiting the bandwidth An high percentage of words in common Example 18
- 19. i. We could use a leaky bucket algorithm to limit the bandwidth ii. The leaky bucket algorithm fails in limiting the bandwidth Discuss about the same topics Example 19
- 20. i. We could use a leaky bucket algorithm to limit the bandwidth ii. The leaky bucket algorithm fails in limiting the bandwidth Have different intentions Example 20
- 21. i. We could use a leaky bucket algorithm to limit the bandwidth ii. The leaky bucket algorithm fails in limiting the bandwidth Have different intentions Example “Techniques based on lexicon analysis, such as VSM [1], LSI [2], or LDA [3] would not be sufficient to classify paragraphs according to intentions”. . [1] Baeza-‐‑Yates et al. “Modern Information Retrieval”. [2] de Marneffe et al., “The Stanford typed dependencies representation”. [3] Blei et al., “Latent dirichlet allocation”. 21
- 22. Perspective 22
- 23. Goal: Understanding to what extent NL parsing could be used in recognizing informative text fragments in emails from a software maintenance and evolution perspective Quality focus: Detection of text paragraphs in development discussions containing helpful information for developers. Perspective: Guide developers in maintaining and evolving their products. Case Study 23
- 24. Research Questions RQ1: Can an NLP approach (i.e. DECA) be effective in classifying writers’ intentions in development emails? RQ2: Is DECA more effective than existing Machine Learning techniques in classifying development emails content? 24
- 26. STEPS: 1) Taxonomy Definition 2) Classification Based on DECA (NLP Analyzer) 26
- 28. Sampling We selected 100 Of the Project 28
- 29. Clustering Clusters Implementation Technical Infrastructure Project Status Social Interations Usage Discarded Guzzi et. al – MSR2013 29
- 30. Clustering Guzzi et. al – ICSE2012 30
- 32. Differences with Guzzi et. al. 32
- 33. Examples 33
- 34. Natural Language Parsing DECA (Development Email Content Analyzer) 34
- 36. Why NL parsing? Well defined predicate-‐‑argument structures use we could algorithm a leaky bucket limit to bandwidth the nsubj aux dobj xcomp det amod nn aux dobj det fails algorithm the leaky bucket in limiting bandwidth the nsubj prep det amod nn pcomp dobj det 36
- 37. NL parsing Natural Language Templates use [someone] could [something] nsubj aux dobj fails [somehing] nsubj 37
- 38. Natural Language Templates use [someone] could [something] nsubj aux dobj fails [somehing] nsubj NL parsing 38
- 39. Natural Language Templates use [someone] could [something] nsubj aux dobj fails [somehing] nsubj NL parsing 39
- 41. NLP Parser raw text NLP parser NLP heuristics 41
- 42. 42
- 43. 43
- 44. RQ1: Is DECA effective in classifying writers’ intentions in development emails? 44
- 46. Experiment I training test 102 87 100 Experiment II False Negative 46
- 47. Experiment II training 100 169 test 100 Experiment III False Negative 47
- 49. 49
- 50. 50
- 51. 51
- 52. 52
- 53. 53
- 54. 54
- 55. RQ2: Is the proposed approach more effective than existing ML in classifying development emails content? 55
- 56. ML for Email Classification An Approach Based on ML for Email Content Classification à Antoniol et. al., CASCON 2008 à Zhou et al. , ICSME 2014 56
- 57. ML for Email Classification An Approach Based on ML for Email Content Classification 1)Text Features 57
- 58. ML for Email Classification An Approach Based on ML for Email Content Classification 1)Text Features 2) Split training and test sets 58
- 59. ML for Email Classification An Approach Based on ML for Email Content Classification 1)Text Features 2) Split training and test sets 3) Oracle building 59
- 60. ML for Email Classification An Approach Based on ML for Email Content Classification 1)Text Features 2) Split training and test sets 3) Oracle building 4) Classification training prediction à Antoniol et. al., CASCON 2008 à Zhou et al. , ICSME 2014 60
- 61. 61
- 62. 62
- 63. 63
- 64. 64
- 65. 65
- 66. 66
- 67. 67
- 68. 68
- 69. 69
- 70. Summary • RQ2: DECA outperforms traditional ML techniques in terms of recall, precision and F-Measure when classifying e-mail content. • RQ1: the automatic classification performed by DECA achieves very good results in terms of both precision, recall and F-measure (over all the experiments). 70
- 71. Summary • RQ2: DECA outperforms traditional ML techniques in terms of recall, precision and F-Measure when classifying e-mail content. ”…it took the MSR community more than 10 years to figure out that machine learning is not the best method for analyzing human-written text. Thank you for helping move the field forward…” [One of the ASE Reviewers] • RQ1: the automatic classification performed by DECA achieves very good results in terms of both precision, recall and F-measure (over all the experiments). 71
- 72. 72
- 73. Code e-‐‑documentation àPanichella et. al. – ICPC 2012 Extract methods’ descriptions from developers discussions à Vector Space Models à ad hoc heuristics “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 73
- 74. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 74
- 75. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 75
- 76. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 76
- 77. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 77
- 78. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 78
- 79. Code re-‐‑documentation “… several are the discourse paIerns that characterize false negative method descriptions… “ 79
- 81. Conclusion 81
- 82. Conclusion 82
- 83. Conclusion 83
- 84. Conclusion 84
- 85. Conclusion 85
- 86. Conclusion 86
- 87. Future work 1)DECA as preprocessing support to discard irrelevant sentences in summarization approaches 87
- 88. Future work 1)DECA as preprocessing support to discard irrelevant sentences in summarization approaches 2)DECA in combination with topic models for mining contents with the same intentions and the same topics 88