4.7 Article

Improved estimation of software development effort using Classical and Fuzzy Analogy ensembles

Journal

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
Volume 49, Issue -, Pages 990-1019

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.012

Keywords

Software development effort estimation; Ensemble effort estimation; Analogy; Fuzzy logic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Delivering an accurate estimate of software development effort plays a decisive role in successful management of a software project. Therefore, several effort estimation techniques have been proposed including analogy based techniques. However, despite the large number of proposed techniques, none has outperformed the others in all circumstances and previous studies have recommended generating estimation from ensembles of various single techniques rather than using only one solo technique. Hence, this paper proposes two types of homogeneous ensembles based on single Classical Analogy or single Fuzzy Analogy for the first time. To evaluate this proposal, we conducted an empirical study with 100/60 variants of Classical/Fuzzy Analogy techniques respectively. These variants were assessed using standardized accuracy and effect size criteria over seven datasets. Thereafter, these variants were clustered using the Scott-Knott statistical test and ranked using four unbiased errors measures. Moreover, three linear combiners were used to combine the single estimates. The results show that there is no best single Classical/Fuzzy Analogy technique across all datasets, and the constructed ensembles (Classical/Fuzzy Analogy ensembles) are often ranked first and their performances are, in general, higher than the single techniques. Furthermore, Fuzzy Analogy ensembles achieve better performance than Classical Analogy ensembles and there is no best Classical/Fuzzy ensemble across all datasets and no evidence concerning the best combiner. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available