新任助教講演会(Lectures from New Assistant Professors)

日時(Datetime) 令和4年6月16日(木)3限 (13:30 -- 15:00), 2022/06/16, Thursday
場所(Location) エーアイ大講義室(L1)
司会(Chair) 藤本 雄一郎(Yuichiro Fujimoto)

講演者(Presenter) 中畑 裕 (Yu Nakahata), 大規模システム管理研究室 (Large-Scale Systems Management Lab.)
題目(Title) Reconfiguring Directed Trees in a Digraph
概要(Abstract) In this study, we investigate the computational complexity of subgraph reconfiguration problems in directed graphs. More specifically, we focus on the problem of determining whether, given two directed trees in a digraph, there is a (reconfiguration) sequence of directed trees such that for every pair of two consecutive trees in the sequence, one of them is obtained from the other by removing an arc and then adding another arc. We show that this problem can be solved in polynomial time, whereas the problem is PSPACE-complete when we restrict directed trees in a reconfiguration sequence to form directed paths. We also show that there is a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a shortest reconfiguration sequence between two directed spanning trees.

講演者(Presenter) 平尾 俊貴(Toshiki Hirao), ソフトウェア設計学研究室 (Software Design and Analysis Lab.)
題目(Title) An Empirical Study of Design Discussions in Code Review
概要(Abstract) Code review is a well-established software quality practice where developers critique each others’ changes. A shift towards automated detection of low-level issues (e.g., integration with linters) has, in theory, freed reviewers up to focus on higher level issues, such as software design. Yet in practice, little is known about the extent to which design is discussed during code review. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we set out to study the frequency and nature of design discussions in code reviews. We perform an empirical study on the code reviews of the OpenStack Nova (provisioning management) and Neutron (networking abstraction) projects. We manually classify 2,817 review comments from a randomly selected sample of 220 code reviews. We then train and evaluate classiiers to automatically label review comments as design related or not. Finally, we apply the classiiers to a larger sample of 2,506,308 review comments to study the characteristics of reviews that include design discussions. Our manual analysis indicates that (1) design discussions are still quite rare, with only 9% and 14% of Nova and Neutron review comments being related to software design, respectively; and (2) design feedback is often constructive, with 73% of the designrelated comments also providing suggestions to address the concerns. Furthermore, our classiiers achieve a precision of 59-66% and a recall of 70-78%, outperforming baselines like zeroR by 43 percentage points in terms of F1-score. Finally, code changes that have design-related feedback have a statistically signiicantly increased rate of abandonment (Pearson χ 2 test, DF=1, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Design-related discussion during code review is still rare. Since design discussion is a primary motivation for conducting code review, more may need to be done to encourage such discussions among contributors.