William Nichols

Swati Rallapalli, Shannon Gallagher, Andrew O. Mellinger et al.

We study the efficacy of fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) for the specific task of report (government archives, news, intelligence reports) summarization. While this topic is being very actively researched - our specific application set-up faces two challenges: (i) ground-truth summaries maybe unavailable (e.g., for government archives), and (ii) availability of limited compute power - the sensitive nature of the application requires that computation is performed on-premise and for most of our experiments we use one or two A100 GPU cards. Under this set-up we conduct experiments to answer the following questions. First, given that fine-tuning the LLMs can be resource intensive, is it feasible to fine-tune them for improved report summarization capabilities on-premise? Second, what are the metrics we could leverage to assess the quality of these summaries? We conduct experiments on two different fine-tuning approaches in parallel and our findings reveal interesting trends regarding the utility of fine-tuning LLMs. Specifically, we find that in many cases, fine-tuning helps improve summary quality and in other cases it helps by reducing the number of invalid or garbage summaries.

Tim Menzies, William Nichols, Forrest Shull et al.

Many practitioners and academics believe in a delayed issue effect (DIE); i.e. the longer an issue lingers in the system, the more effort it requires to resolve. This belief is often used to justify major investments in new development processes that promise to retire more issues sooner. This paper tests for the delayed issue effect in 171 software projects conducted around the world in the period from 2006--2014. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study yet published on this effect. We found no evidence for the delayed issue effect; i.e. the effort to resolve issues in a later phase was not consistently or substantially greater than when issues were resolved soon after their introduction. This paper documents the above study and explores reasons for this mismatch between this common rule of thumb and empirical data. In summary, DIE is not some constant across all projects. Rather, DIE might be an historical relic that occurs intermittently only in certain kinds of projects. This is a significant result since it predicts that new development processes that promise to faster retire more issues will not have a guaranteed return on investment (depending on the context where applied), and that a long-held truth in software engineering should not be considered a global truism.