A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies

This paper aims to provide a basis for the improvement of software estimation research through a systematic review of previous work. The review identifies 304 software cost estimation papers in 76 journals and classifies the papers according to research topic, estimation approach, research approach, study context and data set. A web-based library of these cost estimation papers is provided to ease the identification of relevant estimation research results. The review results combined with other knowledge provide support for recommendations for future software cost estimation research, including: 1) Increase the breadth of the search for relevant studies, 2) Search manually for relevant papers within a carefully selected set of journals when completeness is essential, 3) Conduct more studies on estimation methods commonly used by the software industry, and, 4) Increase the awareness of how properties of the data sets impact the results when evaluating estimation methods

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?

Software project economics: A roadmap

The objective of this paper is to consider research progress in the field of software project economics with a view to identifying important challenges and promising research directions. I argue that this is an important sub-discipline since this will underpin any cost-benefit analysis used to justify the resourcing, or otherwise, of a software project. To accomplish this I conducted a bibliometric analysis of peer reviewed research articles to identify major areas of activity. My results indicate that the primary goal of more accurate cost prediction systems remains largely unachieved. However, there are a number of new and promising avenues of research including: how we can combine results from primary studies, integration of multiple predictions and applying greater emphasis upon the human aspects of prediction tasks. I conclude that the field is likely to remain very challenging due to the people-centric nature of software engineering, since it is in essence a design task. Nevertheless the need for good economic models will grow rather than diminish as software becomes increasingly ubiquitous

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

Bug or Not? Bug Report Classification Using N-Gram IDF

Previous studies have found that a significant number of bug reports are misclassified between bugs and non-bugs, and that manually classifying bug reports is a time-consuming task. To address this problem, we propose a bug reports classification model with N-gram IDF, a theoretical extension of Inverse Document Frequency (IDF) for handling words and phrases of any length. N-gram IDF enables us to extract key terms of any length from texts, these key terms can be used as the features to classify bug reports. We build classification models with logistic regression and random forest using features from N-gram IDF and topic modeling, which is widely used in various software engineering tasks. With a publicly available dataset, our results show that our N-gram IDF-based models have a superior performance than the topic-based models on all of the evaluated cases. Our models show promising results and have a potential to be extended to other software engineering tasks.Comment: 5 pages, ICSME 201

Research Findings on Empirical Evaluation of Requirements Specifications Approaches

Numerous software requirements specification (SRS) approaches have been proposed in software engineering. However, there has been little empirical evaluation of the use of these approaches in specific contexts. This paper describes the results of a mapping study, a key instrument of the evidence-based paradigm, in an effort to understand what aspects of SRS are evaluated, in which context, and by using which research method. On the basis of 46 identified and categorized primary studies, we found that understandability is the most commonly evaluated aspect of SRS, experiments are the most commonly used research method, and the academic environment is where most empirical evaluation takes place