交叉发布工作感知缺陷预测模型的经验评价

K. E. Bennin, Koji Toda, Yasutaka Kamei, J. Keung, Akito Monden, Naoyasu Ubayashi
{"title":"交叉发布工作感知缺陷预测模型的经验评价","authors":"K. E. Bennin, Koji Toda, Yasutaka Kamei, J. Keung, Akito Monden, Naoyasu Ubayashi","doi":"10.1109/QRS.2016.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To prioritize quality assurance efforts, various fault prediction models have been proposed. However, the best performing fault prediction model is unknown due to three major drawbacks: (1) comparison of few fault prediction models considering small number of data sets, (2) use of evaluation measures that ignore testing efforts and (3) use of n-fold cross-validation instead of the more practical cross-release validation. To address these concerns, we conducted cross-release evaluation of 11 fault density prediction models using data sets collected from 2 releases of 25 open source software projects with an effort-aware performance measure known as Norm(Popt). Our result shows that, whilst M5 and K* had the best performances, they were greatly influenced by the percentage of faulty modules present and size of data set. Using Norm(Popt) produced an overall average performance of more than 50% across all the selected models clearly indicating the importance of considering testing efforts in building fault-prone prediction models.","PeriodicalId":412973,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"41","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical Evaluation of Cross-Release Effort-Aware Defect Prediction Models\",\"authors\":\"K. E. Bennin, Koji Toda, Yasutaka Kamei, J. Keung, Akito Monden, Naoyasu Ubayashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/QRS.2016.33\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To prioritize quality assurance efforts, various fault prediction models have been proposed. However, the best performing fault prediction model is unknown due to three major drawbacks: (1) comparison of few fault prediction models considering small number of data sets, (2) use of evaluation measures that ignore testing efforts and (3) use of n-fold cross-validation instead of the more practical cross-release validation. To address these concerns, we conducted cross-release evaluation of 11 fault density prediction models using data sets collected from 2 releases of 25 open source software projects with an effort-aware performance measure known as Norm(Popt). Our result shows that, whilst M5 and K* had the best performances, they were greatly influenced by the percentage of faulty modules present and size of data set. Using Norm(Popt) produced an overall average performance of more than 50% across all the selected models clearly indicating the importance of considering testing efforts in building fault-prone prediction models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"41\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS.2016.33\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/QRS.2016.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

摘要

为了对质量保证工作进行优先排序,人们提出了各种故障预测模型。然而,由于三个主要缺点,性能最好的故障预测模型尚不清楚:(1)考虑少量数据集的少数故障预测模型的比较,(2)使用忽略测试工作的评估措施,(3)使用n倍交叉验证而不是更实用的交叉发布验证。为了解决这些问题,我们使用从25个开源软件项目的2个版本中收集的数据集对11个故障密度预测模型进行了交叉发布评估,并使用了一种称为Norm(Popt)的工作感知性能度量。我们的结果表明,虽然M5和K*具有最好的性能,但它们受到存在的故障模块百分比和数据集大小的很大影响。使用Norm(Popt)在所有选择的模型中产生了超过50%的总体平均性能,这清楚地表明了在构建容易出错的预测模型中考虑测试工作的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Empirical Evaluation of Cross-Release Effort-Aware Defect Prediction Models
To prioritize quality assurance efforts, various fault prediction models have been proposed. However, the best performing fault prediction model is unknown due to three major drawbacks: (1) comparison of few fault prediction models considering small number of data sets, (2) use of evaluation measures that ignore testing efforts and (3) use of n-fold cross-validation instead of the more practical cross-release validation. To address these concerns, we conducted cross-release evaluation of 11 fault density prediction models using data sets collected from 2 releases of 25 open source software projects with an effort-aware performance measure known as Norm(Popt). Our result shows that, whilst M5 and K* had the best performances, they were greatly influenced by the percentage of faulty modules present and size of data set. Using Norm(Popt) produced an overall average performance of more than 50% across all the selected models clearly indicating the importance of considering testing efforts in building fault-prone prediction models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信