The Quest for Content: A Survey of Search-Based Procedural Content Generation for Video Games

Video games demand is constantly increasing, which requires the costly production of large amounts of content. Towards this challenge, researchers have developed Search-Based Procedural Content Generation (SBPCG), that is, the (semi-)automated creation of content through search algorithms. We survey the current state of SBPCG, reporting work appeared in the field between 2011-2022 and identifying open research challenges. The results lead to recommendations for practitioners and to the identification of several potential future research avenues for SBPCG.

Enhancing Genetic Improvement Mutations Using Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have been successfully applied to software engineering tasks, including program repair. However, their application in search-based techniques such as Genetic Improvement (GI) is still largely unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate the use of LLMs as mutation operators for GI to improve the search process. We expand the Gin Java GI toolkit to call OpenAI's API to generate edits for the JCodec tool. We randomly sample the space of edits using 5 different edit types. We find that the number of patches passing unit tests is up to 75% higher with LLM-based edits than with standard Insert edits. Further, we observe that the patches found with LLMs are generally less diverse compared to standard edits. We ran GI with local search to find runtime improvements. Although many improving patches are found by LLM-enhanced GI, the best improving patch was found by standard GI.

FECoM: A Step towards Fine-Grained Energy Measurement for Deep Learning

With the increasing usage, scale, and complexity of Deep Learning (DL) models, their rapidly growing energy consumption has become a critical concern. Promoting green development and energy awareness at different granularities is the need of the hour to limit carbon emissions of DL systems. However, the lack of standard and repeatable tools to accurately measure and optimize energy consumption at a fine granularity (e.g., at method level) hinders progress in this area. In this paper, we introduce FECoM (Fine-grained Energy Consumption Meter), a framework for fine-grained DL energy consumption measurement. Specifically, FECoM provides researchers and developers a mechanism to profile DL APIs. FECoM addresses the challenges of measuring energy consumption at fine-grained level by using static instrumentation and considering various factors, including computational load and temperature stability. We assess FECoM's capability to measure fine-grained energy consumption for one of the most popular open-source DL frameworks, namely TensorFlow. Using FECoM, we also investigate the impact of parameter size and execution time on energy consumption, enriching our understanding of TensorFlow APIs' energy profiles. Furthermore, we elaborate on the considerations, issues, and challenges that one needs to consider while designing and implementing a fine-grained energy consumption measurement tool. We hope this work will facilitate further advances in DL energy measurement and the development of energy-aware practices for DL systems.

Dark-Skin Individuals Are at More Risk on the Street: Unmasking Fairness Issues of Autonomous Driving Systems

This paper conducts fairness testing on automated pedestrian detection, a crucial but under-explored issue in autonomous driving systems. We evaluate eight widely-studied pedestrian detectors across demographic groups on large-scale real-world datasets. To enable thorough fairness testing, we provide extensive annotations for the datasets, resulting in 8,311 images with 16,070 gender labels, 20,115 age labels, and 3,513 skin tone labels. Our findings reveal significant fairness issues related to age and skin tone. The detection accuracy for adults is 19.67% higher compared to children, and there is a 7.52% accuracy disparity between light-skin and dark-skin individuals. Gender, however, shows only a 1.1% difference in detection accuracy. Additionally, we investigate common scenarios explored in the literature on autonomous driving testing, and find that the bias towards dark-skin pedestrians increases significantly under scenarios of low contrast and low brightness. We publicly release the code, data, and results to support future research on fairness in autonomous driving.

An Empirical Study on Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes

Existing research mostly improves the fairness of Machine Learning (ML) software regarding a single protected attribute at a time, but this is unrealistic given that many users have multiple protected attributes. This paper conducts an extensive study of fairness improvement regarding multiple protected attributes, covering 11 state-of-the-art fairness improvement methods. We analyze the effectiveness of these methods with different datasets, metrics, and ML models when considering multiple protected attributes. The results reveal that improving fairness for a single protected attribute can largely decrease fairness regarding unconsidered protected attributes. This decrease is observed in up to 88.3% of scenarios (57.5% on average). More surprisingly, we find little difference in accuracy loss when considering single and multiple protected attributes, indicating that accuracy can be maintained in the multiple-attribute paradigm. However, the effect on precision and recall when handling multiple protected attributes is about 5 times and 8 times that of a single attribute. This has important implications for future fairness research: reporting only accuracy as the ML performance metric, which is currently common in the literature, is inadequate.

Enhanced Fairness Testing via Generating Effective Initial Individual Discriminatory Instances

Fairness testing aims at mitigating unintended discrimination in the decision-making process of data-driven AI systems. Individual discrimination may occur when an AI model makes different decisions for two distinct individuals who are distinguishable solely according to protected attributes, such as age and race. Such instances reveal biased AI behaviour, and are called Individual Discriminatory Instances (IDIs). In this paper, we propose an approach for the selection of the initial seeds to generate IDIs for fairness testing. Previous studies mainly used random initial seeds to this end. However this phase is crucial, as these seeds are the basis of the follow-up IDIs generation. We dubbed our proposed seed selection approach I&D. It generates a large number of initial IDIs exhibiting a great diversity, aiming at improving the overall performance of fairness testing. Our empirical study reveal that I&D is able to produce a larger number of IDIs with respect to four state-of-the-art seed generation approaches, generating 1.68X more IDIs on average. Moreover, we compare the use of I&D to train machine learning models and find that using I&D reduces the number of remaining IDIs by 29% when compared to the state-of-the-art, thus indicating that I&D is effective for improving model fairness

Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Survey

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of bias mitigation methods for achieving fairness in Machine Learning (ML) models. We collect a total of 234 publications concerning bias mitigation for ML classifiers. These methods can be distinguished based on their intervention procedure (i.e., pre-processing, in-processing, post-processing) and the technology they apply. We investigate how existing bias mitigation methods are evaluated in the literature. In particular, we consider datasets, metrics and benchmarking. Based on the gathered insights (e.g., what is the most popular fairness metric? How many datasets are used for evaluating bias mitigation methods?). We hope to support practitioners in making informed choices when developing and evaluating new bias mitigation methods.

A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Software Fairness

Software bias is an increasingly important operational concern for software engineers. We present a large-scale, comprehensive empirical evaluation of 17 representative bias mitigation methods, evaluated with 12 Machine Learning (ML) performance metrics, 4 fairness metrics, and 24 types of fairness-performance trade-off assessment, applied to 8 widely-adopted benchmark software decision/prediction tasks. The empirical coverage is comprehensive, covering the largest numbers of bias mitigation methods, evaluation metrics, and fairness-performance trade-off measures compared to previous work on this important operational software characteristic. We find that (1) the bias mitigation methods significantly decrease the values reported by all ML performance metrics (including those not considered in previous work) in a large proportion of the scenarios studied (42%~75% according to different ML performance metrics); (2) the bias mitigation methods achieve fairness improvement in only approximately 50% over all scenarios and metrics (ranging between 29%~59% according to the metric used to asses bias/fairness); (3) the bias mitigation methods have a poor fairness-performance trade-off or even lead to decreases in both fairness and ML performance in 37% of the scenarios; (4) the effectiveness of the bias mitigation methods depends on tasks, models, and fairness and ML performance metrics, and there is no 'silver bullet' bias mitigation method demonstrated to be effective for all scenarios studied. The best bias mitigation method that we find outperforms other methods in only 29% of the scenarios. We have made publicly available the scripts and data used in this study in order to allow for future replication and extension of our work.

Do Not Take It for Granted: Comparing Open-Source Libraries for Software Development Effort Estimation

In the past two decades, several Machine Learning (ML) libraries have become freely available. Many studies have used such libraries to carry out empirical investigations on predictive Software Engineering (SE) tasks. However, the differences stemming from using one library over another have been overlooked, implicitly assuming that using any of these libraries would provide the user with the same or very similar results. This paper aims at raising awareness of the differences incurred when using different ML libraries for software development effort estimation (SEE), one of most widely studied SE prediction tasks. To this end, we investigate 4 deterministic machine learners as provided by 3 of the most popular ML open-source libraries written in different languages (namely, Scikit-Learn, Caret and Weka). We carry out a thorough empirical study comparing the performance of the machine learners on 5 SEE datasets in the two most common SEE scenarios (i.e., out-of-the-box-ml and tuned-ml) as well as an in-depth analysis of the documentation and code of their APIs. The results of our study reveal that the predictions provided by the 3 libraries differ in 95% of the cases on average across a total of 105 cases studied. These differences are significantly large in most cases and yield misestimations of up to approx. 3,000 hours per project. Moreover, our API analysis reveals that these libraries provide the user with different levels of control on the parameters one can manipulate, and a lack of clarity and consistency, overall, which might mislead users. Our findings highlight that the ML library is an important design choice for SEE studies, which can lead to a difference in performance. However, such a difference is under-documented. We conclude by highlighting open-challenges with suggestions for the developers of libraries as well as for the researchers and practitioners using them.

Investigating the Use of One-Class Support Vector Machine for Software Defect Prediction

Early software defect identification is considered an important step towards software quality assurance. Software defect prediction aims at identifying software components that are likely to cause faults before a software is made available to the end-user. To date, this task has been modeled as a two-class classification problem, however its nature also allows it to be formulated as a one-class classification task. Preliminary results obtained in prior work show that One-Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM) can outperform two-class classifiers for defect prediction. If confirmed, these results would overcome the data imbalance problem researchers have for long attempted to tackle in this field. In this paper, we further investigate whether learning from one class only is sufficient to produce effective defect prediction models by conducting a thorough large-scale empirical study investigating 15 real-world software projects, three validation scenarios, eight classifiers, robust evaluation measures and statistical significance tests. The results reveal that OCSVM is more suitable for cross-version and cross-project, rather than for within-project defect prediction, thus suggesting it performs better with heterogeneous data. While, we cannot conclude that OCSVM is the best classifier (Random Forest performs best herein), our results show interesting findings that open up further research avenues for training accurate defect prediction classifiers when defective instances are scarce or unavailable.