Will It Break in Production? Metric-Driven Prediction of Residual Defects in Python Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26667v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:30:17 GMT
• Title: Will It Break in Production? Metric-Driven Prediction of Residual Defects in Python Systems
• Abstract summary: Python's dynamic nature complicates testing and increases the possibility that some defects evade detection.<n>We examine whether post-release faults can be predicted using modern ML and DL.
• Score: 1.5518561673506692
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Python's dynamic nature complicates testing and increases the possibility that some defects evade detection, so an effective fault prediction becomes essential. We examine whether post-release faults can be predicted using modern ML and DL. Using a balanced dataset of over 4,000 labeled faults with 83 product, process, statistical, and Python-specific metrics plus normalized code representations, we conduct cross-project experiments. LLMs and unsupervised models fail to distinguish residual from non-residual faults, while supervised metric-based models (RandomForest, XGBoost, CatBoost) perform far better, yielding a 0.85-0.9 recall and cutting false negatives by an order of magnitude. Process metrics, especially age, churn, and developer-activity, alongside class and file size, consistently prove most predictive. Notably, the Principal Component Analysis shows that metrics and code embeddings occupy distinct regions of the representation space, suggesting that they capture complementary rather than redundant information.

Related papers

• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• How Robustly do LLMs Understand Execution Semantics? [3.2717315277334706]
  LLMs demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet whether they utilize internal world models or rely on sophisticated pattern matching remains open.<n>We study LLMs through the lens of robustness of their code understanding using a standard program-output prediction task.<n>Our findings both point to limitations in the way all models understand code, and establish the value of using perturbation to evaluate code models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T19:07:25Z)
• Probing Pre-trained Language Models on Code Changes: Insights from ReDef, a High-Confidence Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Dataset [0.0]
  We present ReDef, a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects.<n>Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks.<n>This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T07:07:11Z)
• Hey, That's My Data! Label-Only Dataset Inference in Large Language Models [63.35066172530291]
  CatShift is a label-only dataset-inference framework.<n>It capitalizes on catastrophic forgetting: the tendency of an LLM to overwrite previously learned knowledge when exposed to new data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T13:02:59Z)
• Language Models Can Predict Their Own Behavior [29.566208688211876]
  Language models (LMs) can exhibit specific behaviors,' such as a failure to follow alignment training, that we hope to detect and react to during deployment.<n>We show that probes trained on the internal representation of input tokens alone can predict a wide range of eventual behaviors over the entire output sequence.<n>An early warning system built on the probes reduces jailbreaking by 91%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T23:13:16Z)
• Predicting the Performance of Black-box LLMs through Self-Queries [60.87193950962585]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied on in AI systems, predicting when they make mistakes is crucial.<n>In this paper, we extract features of LLMs in a black-box manner by using follow-up prompts and taking the probabilities of different responses as representations.<n>We demonstrate that training a linear model on these low-dimensional representations produces reliable predictors of model performance at the instance level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T22:26:54Z)
• Beyond the Norms: Detecting Prediction Errors in Regression Models [26.178065248948773]
  This paper tackles the challenge of detecting unreliable behavior in regression algorithms. We introduce the notion of unreliability in regression, when the output of the regressor exceeds a specified discrepancy (or error) We show empirical improvements in error detection for multiple regression tasks, consistently outperforming popular baseline approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T05:51:44Z)
• Variance of ML-based software fault predictors: are we really improving fault prediction? [0.3222802562733786]
  We experimentally analyze the variance of a state-of-the-art fault prediction approach. We observed a maximum variance of 10.10% in terms of the per-class accuracy metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T09:31:32Z)
• Fault-Aware Neural Code Rankers [64.41888054066861]
  We propose fault-aware neural code rankers that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our fault-aware rankers can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:01:05Z)
• Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
  In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z)
• Tracking the risk of a deployed model and detecting harmful distribution shifts [105.27463615756733]
  In practice, it may make sense to ignore benign shifts, under which the performance of a deployed model does not degrade substantially. We argue that a sensible method for firing off a warning has to both (a) detect harmful shifts while ignoring benign ones, and (b) allow continuous monitoring of model performance without increasing the false alarm rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-12T17:21:41Z)
• What is the Vocabulary of Flaky Tests? An Extended Replication [0.0]
  We conduct an empirical study to assess the use of code identifiers to predict test flakiness. We validated the performance of trained models using datasets with other flaky tests and from different projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T16:42:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.