Potential and limitations of the ISBSG dataset in enhancing software engineering research: A mapping review

Context The International Software Benchmarking Standards Group (ISBSG) maintains a software development repository with over 6000 software projects. This dataset makes it possible to estimate a project s size, effort, duration, and cost. Objective The aim of this study was to determine how and to what extent, ISBSG has been used by researchers from 2000, when the first papers were published, until June of 2012. Method A systematic mapping review was used as the research method, which was applied to over 129 papers obtained after the filtering process. Results The papers were published in 19 journals and 40 conferences. Thirty-five percent of the papers published between years 2000 and 2011 have received at least one citation in journals and only five papers have received six or more citations. Effort variable is the focus of 70.5% of the papers, 22.5% center their research in a variable different from effort and 7% do not consider any target variable. Additionally, in as many as 70.5% of papers, effort estimation is the research topic, followed by dataset properties (36.4%). The more frequent methods are Regression (61.2%), Machine Learning (35.7%), and Estimation by Analogy (22.5%). ISBSG is used as the only support in 55% of the papers while the remaining papers use complementary datasets. The ISBSG release 10 is used most frequently with 32 references. Finally, some benefits and drawbacks of the usage of ISBSG have been highlighted. Conclusion This work presents a snapshot of the existing usage of ISBSG in software development research. ISBSG offers a wealth of information regarding practices from a wide range of organizations, applications, and development types, which constitutes its main potential. However, a data preparation process is required before any analysis. Lastly, the potential of ISBSG to develop new research is also outlined.Fernández Diego, M.; González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F. (2014). Potential and limitations of the ISBSG dataset in enhancing software engineering research: A mapping review. Information and Software Technology. 56(6):527-544. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.003S52754456

Linear programming as a baseline for software effort estimation

Software effort estimation studies still suffer from discordant empirical results (i.e., conclusion instability) mainly due to the lack of rigorous benchmarking methods. So far only one baseline model, namely, Automatically Transformed Linear Model (ATLM), has been proposed yet it has not been extensively assessed. In this article, we propose a novel method based on Linear Programming (dubbed as Linear Programming for Effort Estimation, LP4EE) and carry out a thorough empirical study to evaluate the effectiveness of both LP4EE and ATLM for benchmarking widely used effort estimation techniques. The results of our study confirm the need to benchmark every other proposal against accurate and robust baselines. They also reveal that LP4EE is more accurate than ATLM for 17% of the experiments and more robust than ATLM against different data splits and cross-validation methods for 44% of the cases. These results suggest that using LP4EE as a baseline can help reduce conclusion instability. We make publicly available an open-source implementation of LP4EE in order to facilitate its adoption in future studies

Linear Programming as a Baseline for Software Effort Estimation

Software effort estimation studies still suffer from discordant empirical results (i.e., conclusion instability) mainly due to the lack of rigorous benchmarking methods. So far only one baseline model, namely, Automatically Transformed Linear Model (ATLM), has been proposed yet it has not been extensively assessed. In this article, we propose a novel method based on Linear Programming (dubbed as Linear Programming for Effort Estimation, LP4EE) and carry out a thorough empirical study to evaluate the effectiveness of both LP4EE and ATLM for benchmarking widely used effort estimation techniques. The results of our study confirm the need to benchmark every other proposal against accurate and robust baselines. They also reveal that LP4EE is more accurate than ATLM for 17% of the experiments and more robust than ATLM against different data splits and cross-validation methods for 44% of the cases. These results suggest that using LP4EE as a baseline can help reduce conclusion instability. We make publicly available an open-source implementation of LP4EE in order to facilitate its adoption in future studies