{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03905160390516039, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02789400278940028, 'mean_word_length': 4.4393939393939394, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Stemming Techniques in Tracing

We examine the effects of stemming on the tracing of software engineering artifacts. We compare two common stemming algorithms to each other as well as to a baseline of no stemming. We evaluate the algorithms on eight tracing datasets. We run the experiment using the TraceLab experimental framework to allow for ease of repeatability and knowledge sharing among the tracing community. We compare the algorithms on precision at recall levels of [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0], as well as on mean average precision values. The experiment indicated that neither the Porter stemmer nor the Krovetz stemmer outperformed the other on all datasets tested.