深度学习还是经典机器学习?线路级软件缺陷预测实证研究

IF 1.7 4区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Yufei Zhou, Xutong Liu, Zhaoqiang Guo, Yuming Zhou, Corey Zhang, Junyan Qian
{"title":"深度学习还是经典机器学习?线路级软件缺陷预测实证研究","authors":"Yufei Zhou,&nbsp;Xutong Liu,&nbsp;Zhaoqiang Guo,&nbsp;Yuming Zhou,&nbsp;Corey Zhang,&nbsp;Junyan Qian","doi":"10.1002/smr.2696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Line-level software defect prediction (LL-SDP) serves as a valuable tool for developers to detect defective lines with minimal human effort. Recently, GLANCE was proposed as a readily implementable baseline for assessing the efficacy of newly proposed LL-SDP models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Problem</h3>\n \n <p>While DeepLineDP, a cutting-edge LL-SDP model rooted in deep learning, has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance, it has not yet been compared against GLANCE.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>We aim to empirically compare DeepLineDP with GLANCE to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how deep learning contributes to solving the LL-SDP challenge.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We compare GLANCE against DeepLineDP to assess the extent to which DeepLineDP surpasses GLANCE in predicting defective files and identifying problematic lines. In order to obtain a reliable conclusion, we use the same dataset and performance metrics utilized by DeepLineDP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Result</h3>\n \n <p>Our experimental findings indicate that DeepLineDP does not outperform GLANCE in LL-SDP. This suggests that the application of deep learning, in this context, does not yield the anticipated significant improvements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This finding underscores the need for further research in deep learning-based LL-SDP to attain the state-of-the-art performance that remains elusive for less advanced techniques.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48898,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process","volume":"36 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep learning or classical machine learning? An empirical study on line-level software defect prediction\",\"authors\":\"Yufei Zhou,&nbsp;Xutong Liu,&nbsp;Zhaoqiang Guo,&nbsp;Yuming Zhou,&nbsp;Corey Zhang,&nbsp;Junyan Qian\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/smr.2696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Line-level software defect prediction (LL-SDP) serves as a valuable tool for developers to detect defective lines with minimal human effort. Recently, GLANCE was proposed as a readily implementable baseline for assessing the efficacy of newly proposed LL-SDP models.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Problem</h3>\\n \\n <p>While DeepLineDP, a cutting-edge LL-SDP model rooted in deep learning, has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance, it has not yet been compared against GLANCE.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aim to empirically compare DeepLineDP with GLANCE to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how deep learning contributes to solving the LL-SDP challenge.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We compare GLANCE against DeepLineDP to assess the extent to which DeepLineDP surpasses GLANCE in predicting defective files and identifying problematic lines. In order to obtain a reliable conclusion, we use the same dataset and performance metrics utilized by DeepLineDP.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Result</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our experimental findings indicate that DeepLineDP does not outperform GLANCE in LL-SDP. This suggests that the application of deep learning, in this context, does not yield the anticipated significant improvements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This finding underscores the need for further research in deep learning-based LL-SDP to attain the state-of-the-art performance that remains elusive for less advanced techniques.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process\",\"volume\":\"36 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smr.2696\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Software-Evolution and Process","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smr.2696","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

线路级软件缺陷预测(LL-SDP)是开发人员以最小的人力检测缺陷线路的重要工具。最近,GLANCE 被提出作为评估新提出的 LL-SDP 模型功效的一个易于实现的基线。虽然 DeepLineDP(一种植根于深度学习的前沿 LL-SDP 模型)已经展示了最先进的性能,但它尚未与 GLANCE 进行过比较。我们将 GLANCE 与 DeepLineDP 进行比较,以评估 DeepLineDP 在预测缺陷文件和识别问题行方面超越 GLANCE 的程度。为了得出可靠的结论,我们使用了与 DeepLineDP 相同的数据集和性能指标。我们的实验结果表明,DeepLineDP 在 LL-SDP 中的表现并没有超过 GLANCE。这表明,在这种情况下,深度学习的应用并没有产生预期的显著改进。这一发现突出表明,需要进一步研究基于深度学习的 LL-SDP,以获得最先进的性能,而对于不太先进的技术来说,这种性能仍然难以达到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deep learning or classical machine learning? An empirical study on line-level software defect prediction

Background

Line-level software defect prediction (LL-SDP) serves as a valuable tool for developers to detect defective lines with minimal human effort. Recently, GLANCE was proposed as a readily implementable baseline for assessing the efficacy of newly proposed LL-SDP models.

Problem

While DeepLineDP, a cutting-edge LL-SDP model rooted in deep learning, has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance, it has not yet been compared against GLANCE.

Objective

We aim to empirically compare DeepLineDP with GLANCE to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how deep learning contributes to solving the LL-SDP challenge.

Method

We compare GLANCE against DeepLineDP to assess the extent to which DeepLineDP surpasses GLANCE in predicting defective files and identifying problematic lines. In order to obtain a reliable conclusion, we use the same dataset and performance metrics utilized by DeepLineDP.

Result

Our experimental findings indicate that DeepLineDP does not outperform GLANCE in LL-SDP. This suggests that the application of deep learning, in this context, does not yield the anticipated significant improvements.

Conclusion

This finding underscores the need for further research in deep learning-based LL-SDP to attain the state-of-the-art performance that remains elusive for less advanced techniques.

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
Journal of Software-Evolution and Process
Journal of Software-Evolution and Process COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING-
自引率
10.00%
发文量
109
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信