4.4 Article

Value-cognitive boosting with a support vector machine for cross-project defect prediction

期刊

EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 43-71

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-014-9346-4

关键词

Boosting; Class imbalance; Cross-project defect prediction; Transfer learning

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2013R1A1A2006985]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A1A2006985] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well-known that software defect prediction is one of the most important tasks for software quality improvement. The use of defect predictors allows test engineers to focus on defective modules. Thereby testing resources can be allocated effectively and the quality assurance costs can be reduced. For within-project defect prediction (WPDP), there should be sufficient data within a company to train any prediction model. Without such local data, cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) is feasible since it uses data collected from similar projects in other companies. Software defect datasets have the class imbalance problem increasing the difficulty for the learner to predict defects. In addition, the impact of imbalanced data on the real performance of models can be hidden by the performance measures chosen. We investigate if the class imbalance learning can be beneficial for CPDP. In our approach, the asymmetric misclassification cost and the similarity weights obtained from distributional characteristics are closely associated to guide the appropriate resampling mechanism. We performed the effect size A-statistics test to evaluate the magnitude of the improvement. For the statistical significant test, we used Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The experimental results show that our approach can provide higher prediction performance than both the existing CPDP technique and the existing class imbalance technique.

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

4.4
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