4.6 Article

Forecasting technical debt evolution in software systems: an empirical study

期刊

FRONTIERS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

HIGHER EDUCATION PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11704-022-1541-7

关键词

technical debt; empirical study; software quality metrics; machine learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Technical debt is detrimental to software development, and there is still a need for further research and understanding. This study evaluates the use of quality metrics for accurate prediction of technical debt, providing a useful approach for practical purposes.
Technical debt is considered detrimental to the long-term success of software development, but despite the numerous studies in the literature, there are still many aspects that need to be investigated for a better understanding of it. In particular, the main problems that hinder its complete understanding are the absence of a clear definition and a model for its identification, management, and forecasting. Focusing on forecasting technical debt, there is a growing notion that preventing technical debt build-up allows you to identify and address the riskiest debt items for the project before they can permanently compromise it. However, despite this high relevance, the forecast of technical debt is still little explored. To this end, this study aims to evaluate whether the quality metrics of a software system can be useful for the correct prediction of the technical debt. Therefore, the data related to the quality metrics of 8 different open-source software systems were analyzed and supplied as input to multiple machine learning algorithms to perform the prediction of the technical debt. In addition, several partitions of the initial dataset were evaluated to assess whether prediction performance could be improved by performing a data selection. The results obtained show good forecasting performance and the proposed document provides a useful approach to understanding the overall phenomenon of technical debt for practical purposes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据