努力感知缺陷预测模型

Thilo Mende, R. Koschke
{"title":"努力感知缺陷预测模型","authors":"Thilo Mende, R. Koschke","doi":"10.1109/CSMR.2010.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Defect Prediction Models aim at identifying error-prone modules of a software system to guide quality assurance activities such as tests or code reviews. Such models have been actively researched for more than a decade, with more than 100 published research papers. However, most of the models proposed so far have assumed that the cost of applying quality assurance activities is the same for each module. In a recent paper, we have shown that this fact can be exploited by a trivial classifier ordering files just by their size: such a classifier performs surprisingly good, at least when effort is ignored during the evaluation. When effort is considered, many classifiers perform not significantly better than a random selection of modules. In this paper, we compare two different strategies to include treatment effort into the prediction process, and evaluate the predictive power of such models. Both models perform significantly better when the evaluation measure takes the effort into account.","PeriodicalId":307062,"journal":{"name":"2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"195","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effort-Aware Defect Prediction Models\",\"authors\":\"Thilo Mende, R. Koschke\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CSMR.2010.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Defect Prediction Models aim at identifying error-prone modules of a software system to guide quality assurance activities such as tests or code reviews. Such models have been actively researched for more than a decade, with more than 100 published research papers. However, most of the models proposed so far have assumed that the cost of applying quality assurance activities is the same for each module. In a recent paper, we have shown that this fact can be exploited by a trivial classifier ordering files just by their size: such a classifier performs surprisingly good, at least when effort is ignored during the evaluation. When effort is considered, many classifiers perform not significantly better than a random selection of modules. In this paper, we compare two different strategies to include treatment effort into the prediction process, and evaluate the predictive power of such models. Both models perform significantly better when the evaluation measure takes the effort into account.\",\"PeriodicalId\":307062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"195\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2010.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2010 14th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2010.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 195

摘要

缺陷预测模型旨在识别软件系统中容易出错的模块,以指导质量保证活动,如测试或代码审查。这类模型的研究已经活跃了十多年,发表了100多篇研究论文。然而,到目前为止提出的大多数模型都假定应用质量保证活动的成本对每个模块是相同的。在最近的一篇论文中,我们已经证明了这一事实可以通过一个简单的分类器来利用:这样的分类器表现得非常好,至少在评估过程中忽略了努力。当考虑到努力时,许多分类器的性能并不比随机选择的模块好多少。在本文中,我们比较了两种不同的策略,将治疗努力纳入预测过程,并评估了这些模型的预测能力。当评估度量将工作考虑在内时,这两种模型的表现都明显更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effort-Aware Defect Prediction Models
Defect Prediction Models aim at identifying error-prone modules of a software system to guide quality assurance activities such as tests or code reviews. Such models have been actively researched for more than a decade, with more than 100 published research papers. However, most of the models proposed so far have assumed that the cost of applying quality assurance activities is the same for each module. In a recent paper, we have shown that this fact can be exploited by a trivial classifier ordering files just by their size: such a classifier performs surprisingly good, at least when effort is ignored during the evaluation. When effort is considered, many classifiers perform not significantly better than a random selection of modules. In this paper, we compare two different strategies to include treatment effort into the prediction process, and evaluate the predictive power of such models. Both models perform significantly better when the evaluation measure takes the effort into account.
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