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

Sentiment Analysis using an ensemble of Feature Selection Algorithms

To determine the opinion of any person experiencing any services or buying any product, the usage of Sentiment Analysis, a continuous research in the field of text mining, is a common practice. It is a process of using computation to identify and categorize opinions expressed in a piece of text. Individuals post their opinion via reviews, tweets, comments or discussions which is our unstructured information. Sentiment analysis gives a general conclusion of audits which benefit clients, individuals or organizations for decision making. The primary point of this paper is to perform an ensemble approach on feature reduction methods identified with natural language processing and performing the analysis based on the results. An ensemble approach is a process of combining two or more methodologies. The feature reduction methods used are Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for feature extraction and Pearson Chi squared statistical test for feature selection. The fundamental commitment of this paper is to experiment whether combined use of cautious feature determination and existing classification methodologies can yield better accuracy

Built to Last or Built Too Fast? Evaluating Prediction Models for Build Times

Automated builds are integral to the Continuous Integration (CI) software development practice. In CI, developers are encouraged to integrate early and often. However, long build times can be an issue when integrations are frequent. This research focuses on finding a balance between integrating often and keeping developers productive. We propose and analyze models that can predict the build time of a job. Such models can help developers to better manage their time and tasks. Also, project managers can explore different factors to determine the best setup for a build job that will keep the build wait time to an acceptable level. Software organizations transitioning to CI practices can use the predictive models to anticipate build times before CI is implemented. The research community can modify our predictive models to further understand the factors and relationships affecting build times.Comment: 4 paged version published in the Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) Pages 487-490. MSR 201