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

Cross-layer system reliability assessment framework for hardware faults

System reliability estimation during early design phases facilitates informed decisions for the integration of effective protection mechanisms against different classes of hardware faults. When not all system abstraction layers (technology, circuit, microarchitecture, software) are factored in such an estimation model, the delivered reliability reports must be excessively pessimistic and thus lead to unacceptably expensive, over-designed systems. We propose a scalable, cross-layer methodology and supporting suite of tools for accurate but fast estimations of computing systems reliability. The backbone of the methodology is a component-based Bayesian model, which effectively calculates system reliability based on the masking probabilities of individual hardware and software components considering their complex interactions. Our detailed experimental evaluation for different technologies, microarchitectures, and benchmarks demonstrates that the proposed model delivers very accurate reliability estimations (FIT rates) compared to statistically significant but slow fault injection campaigns at the microarchitecture level.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

On the use of testability measures for dependability assessment

Program “testability” is informally, the probability that a program will fail under test if it contains at least one fault. When a dependability assessment has to be derived from the observation of a series of failure free test executions (a common need for software subject to “ultra high reliability” requirements), measures of testability can-in theory-be used to draw inferences on program correctness. We rigorously investigate the concept of testability and its use in dependability assessment, criticizing, and improving on, previously published results. We give a general descriptive model of program execution and testing, on which the different measures of interest can be defined. We propose a more precise definition of program testability than that given by other authors, and discuss how to increase testing effectiveness without impairing program reliability in operation. We then study the mathematics of using testability to estimate, from test results: the probability of program correctness and the probability of failures. To derive the probability of program correctness, we use a Bayesian inference procedure and argue that this is more useful than deriving a classical “confidence level”. We also show that a high testability is not an unconditionally desirable property for a program. In particular, for programs complex enough that they are unlikely to be completely fault free, increasing testability may produce a program which will be less trustworthy, even after successful testin

Measurements, Models, Systems and Design

531 s.

Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier - Rapporteur talk at the 25th Solvay Conference

Quantum information science explores the frontier of highly complex quantum states, the "entanglement frontier". This study is motivated by the observation (widely believed but unproven) that classical systems cannot simulate highly entangled quantum systems efficiently, and we hope to hasten the day when well controlled quantum systems can perform tasks surpassing what can be done in the classical world. One way to achieve such "quantum supremacy" would be to run an algorithm on a quantum computer which solves a problem with a super-polynomial speedup relative to classical computers, but there may be other ways that can be achieved sooner, such as simulating exotic quantum states of strongly correlated matter. To operate a large scale quantum computer reliably we will need to overcome the debilitating effects of decoherence, which might be done using "standard" quantum hardware protected by quantum error-correcting codes, or by exploiting the nonabelian quantum statistics of anyons realized in solid state systems, or by combining both methods. Only by challenging the entanglement frontier will we learn whether Nature provides extravagant resources far beyond what the classical world would allow