Software defect prediction: do different classifiers find the same defects?

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.During the last 10 years, hundreds of different defect prediction models have been published. The performance of the classifiers used in these models is reported to be similar with models rarely performing above the predictive performance ceiling of about 80% recall. We investigate the individual defects that four classifiers predict and analyse the level of prediction uncertainty produced by these classifiers. We perform a sensitivity analysis to compare the performance of Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, RPart and SVM classifiers when predicting defects in NASA, open source and commercial datasets. The defect predictions that each classifier makes is captured in a confusion matrix and the prediction uncertainty of each classifier is compared. Despite similar predictive performance values for these four classifiers, each detects different sets of defects. Some classifiers are more consistent in predicting defects than others. Our results confirm that a unique subset of defects can be detected by specific classifiers. However, while some classifiers are consistent in the predictions they make, other classifiers vary in their predictions. Given our results, we conclude that classifier ensembles with decision-making strategies not based on majority voting are likely to perform best in defect prediction.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Defect prediction with bad smells in code

Background: Defect prediction in software can be highly beneficial for development projects, when prediction is highly effective and defect-prone areas are predicted correctly. One of the key elements to gain effective software defect prediction is proper selection of metrics used for dataset preparation. Objective: The purpose of this research is to verify, whether code smells metrics, collected using Microsoft CodeAnalysis tool, added to basic metric set, can improve defect prediction in industrial software development project. Results: We verified, if dataset extension by the code smells sourced metrics, change the effectiveness of the defect prediction by comparing prediction results for datasets with and without code smells-oriented metrics. In a result, we observed only small improvement of effectiveness of defect prediction when dataset extended with bad smells metrics was used: average accuracy value increased by 0.0091 and stayed within the margin of error. However, when only use of code smells based metrics were used for prediction (without basic set of metrics), such process resulted with surprisingly high accuracy (0.8249) and F-measure (0.8286) results. We also elaborated data anomalies and problems we observed when two different metric sources were used to prepare one, consistent set of data. Conclusion: Extending the dataset by the code smells sourced metric does not significantly improve the prediction effectiveness. Achieved result did not compensate effort needed to collect additional metrics. However, we observed that defect prediction based on the code smells only is still highly effective and can be used especially where other metrics hardly be used.Comment: Chapter 10 in Software Engineering: Improving Practice through Research (B. Hnatkowska and M. \'Smia{\l}ek, eds.), pp. 163-176, 201

Software Defect Association Mining and Defect Correction Effort Prediction

Much current software defect prediction work concentrates on the number of defects remaining in software system. In this paper, we present association rule mining based methods to predict defect associations and defect-correction effort. This is to help developers detect software defects and assist project managers in allocating testing resources more effectively. We applied the proposed methods to the SEL defect data consisting of more than 200 projects over more than 15 years. The results show that for the defect association prediction, the accuracy is very high and the false negative rate is very low. Likewise for the defect-correction effort prediction, the accuracy for both defect isolation effort prediction and defect correction effort prediction are also high. We compared the defect-correction effort prediction method with other types of methods: PART, C4.5, and Na¨ıve Bayes and show that accuracy has been improved by at least 23%. We also evaluated the impact of support and confidence levels on prediction accuracy, false negative rate, false positive rate, and the number of rules. We found that higher support and confidence levels may not result in higher prediction accuracy, and a sufficient number of rules is a precondition for high prediction accuracy