Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation

The need for accurate software prediction systems increases as software becomes much larger and more complex. We believe that the underlying characteristics: size, number of features, type of distribution, etc., of the data set influence the choice of the prediction system to be used. For this reason, we would like to control the characteristics of such data sets in order to systematically explore the relationship between accuracy, choice of prediction system, and data set characteristic. It would also be useful to have a large validation data set. Our solution is to simulate data allowing both control and the possibility of large (1000) validation cases. The authors compare four prediction techniques: regression, rule induction, nearest neighbor (a form of case-based reasoning), and neural nets. The results suggest that there are significant differences depending upon the characteristics of the data set. Consequently, researchers should consider prediction context when evaluating competing prediction systems. We observed that the more "messy" the data and the more complex the relationship with the dependent variable, the more variability in the results. In the more complex cases, we observed significantly different results depending upon the particular training set that has been sampled from the underlying data set. However, our most important result is that it is more fruitful to ask which is the best prediction system in a particular context rather than which is the "best" prediction system

The consistency of empirical comparisons of regression and analogy-based software project cost prediction

OBJECTIVE - to determine the consistency within and between results in empirical studies of software engineering cost estimation. We focus on regression and analogy techniques as these are commonly used. METHOD – we conducted an exhaustive search using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and identified 67 journal papers and 104 conference papers. From this sample we identified 11 journal papers and 9 conference papers that used both methods. RESULTS – our analysis found that about 25% of studies were internally inconclusive. We also found that there is approximately equal evidence in favour of, and against analogy-based methods. CONCLUSIONS – we confirm the lack of consistency in the findings and argue that this inconsistent pattern from 20 different studies comparing regression and analogy is somewhat disturbing. It suggests that we need to ask more detailed questions than just: “What is the best prediction system?

Reliability and validity in comparative studies of software prediction models

Empirical studies on software prediction models do not converge with respect to the question "which prediction model is best?" The reason for this lack of convergence is poorly understood. In this simulation study, we have examined a frequently used research procedure comprising three main ingredients: a single data sample, an accuracy indicator, and cross validation. Typically, these empirical studies compare a machine learning model with a regression model. In our study, we use simulation and compare a machine learning and a regression model. The results suggest that it is the research procedure itself that is unreliable. This lack of reliability may strongly contribute to the lack of convergence. Our findings thus cast some doubt on the conclusions of any study of competing software prediction models that used this research procedure as a basis of model comparison. Thus, we need to develop more reliable research procedures before we can have confidence in the conclusions of comparative studies of software prediction models

An Intelligent Approach to Software Cost Prediction

Good software cost prediction is important for effective project management such as budgeting, project planning and control. In this paper, we present an intelligent approach to software cost prediction. By integrating the neuro-fuzzy technique with the well-accepted COCOMO model, our approach can make the best use of both expert knowledge and historical project data. Its major advantages include learning ability, good interpretability, and robustness to imprecise and uncertain inputs. The validation using industry project data shows that the model greatly improves prediction accuracy in comparison with the COCOMO model.Comment: 18th International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling, Los Angeles, USA, 10 pages, 200

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