Is "Better Data" Better than "Better Data Miners"? (On the Benefits of Tuning SMOTE for Defect Prediction)

We report and fix an important systematic error in prior studies that ranked classifiers for software analytics. Those studies did not (a) assess classifiers on multiple criteria and they did not (b) study how variations in the data affect the results. Hence, this paper applies (a) multi-criteria tests while (b) fixing the weaker regions of the training data (using SMOTUNED, which is a self-tuning version of SMOTE). This approach leads to dramatically large increases in software defect predictions. When applied in a 5*5 cross-validation study for 3,681 JAVA classes (containing over a million lines of code) from open source systems, SMOTUNED increased AUC and recall by 60% and 20% respectively. These improvements are independent of the classifier used to predict for quality. Same kind of pattern (improvement) was observed when a comparative analysis of SMOTE and SMOTUNED was done against the most recent class imbalance technique. In conclusion, for software analytic tasks like defect prediction, (1) data pre-processing can be more important than classifier choice, (2) ranking studies are incomplete without such pre-processing, and (3) SMOTUNED is a promising candidate for pre-processing.Comment: 10 pages + 2 references. Accepted to International Conference of Software Engineering (ICSE), 201

Is "Better Data" Better than "Better Data Miners"? (On the Benefits of Tuning SMOTE for Defect Prediction)

We report and fix an important systematic error in prior studies that ranked classifiers for software analytics. Those studies did not (a) assess classifiers on multiple criteria and they did not (b) study how variations in the data affect the results. Hence, this paper applies (a) multi-criteria tests while (b) fixing the weaker regions of the training data (using SMOTUNED, which is a self-tuning version of SMOTE). This approach leads to dramatically large increases in software defect predictions. When applied in a 5*5 cross-validation study for 3,681 JAVA classes (containing over a million lines of code) from open source systems, SMOTUNED increased AUC and recall by 60% and 20% respectively. These improvements are independent of the classifier used to predict for quality. Same kind of pattern (improvement) was observed when a comparative analysis of SMOTE and SMOTUNED was done against the most recent class imbalance technique. In conclusion, for software analytic tasks like defect prediction, (1) data pre-processing can be more important than classifier choice, (2) ranking studies are incomplete without such pre-processing, and (3) SMOTUNED is a promising candidate for pre-processing.Comment: 10 pages + 2 references. Accepted to International Conference of Software Engineering (ICSE), 201

Software Defect Prediction Using AWEIG+ADACOST Bayesian Algorithm for Handling High Dimensional Data and Class Imbalance Problem

The most important part in software engineering is a software defect prediction. Software defect prediction is defined as a software prediction process from errors, failures, and system errors. Machine learning methods are used by researchers to predict software defects including estimation, association, classification, clustering, and datasets analysis. Datasets of NASA Metrics Data Program (NASA MDP) is one of the metric software that researchers use to predict software defects. NASA MDP datasets contain unbalanced classes and high dimensional data, so they will affect the classification evaluation results to be low. In this research, data with unbalanced classes will be solved by the AdaCost method and high dimensional data will be handled with the Average Weight Information Gain (AWEIG) method, while the classification method that will be used is the Naïve Bayes algorithm. The proposed method is named AWEIG + AdaCost Bayesian. In this experiment, the AWEIG + AdaCost Bayesian algorithm is compared to the Naïve Bayesian algorithm. The results showed the mean of Area Under the Curve (AUC) algorithm AWEIG + AdaCost Bayesian yields better than just a Naïve Bayes algorithm with respectively mean of AUC values are 0.752 and 0.696

A Systematic Literature Review on Explainability for Machine/Deep Learning-based Software Engineering Research

The remarkable achievements of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, particularly in Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), have fueled their extensive deployment across multiple sectors, including Software Engineering (SE). However, due to their black-box nature, these promising AI-driven SE models are still far from being deployed in practice. This lack of explainability poses unwanted risks for their applications in critical tasks, such as vulnerability detection, where decision-making transparency is of paramount importance. This paper endeavors to elucidate this interdisciplinary domain by presenting a systematic literature review of approaches that aim to improve the explainability of AI models within the context of SE. The review canvasses work appearing in the most prominent SE & AI conferences and journals, and spans 63 papers across 21 unique SE tasks. Based on three key Research Questions (RQs), we aim to (1) summarize the SE tasks where XAI techniques have shown success to date; (2) classify and analyze different XAI techniques; and (3) investigate existing evaluation approaches. Based on our findings, we identified a set of challenges remaining to be addressed in existing studies, together with a roadmap highlighting potential opportunities we deemed appropriate and important for future work.Comment: submitted to ACM Computing Surveys. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2202.06840 by other author

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

A Review of Metrics and Modeling Techniques in Software Fault Prediction Model Development

This paper surveys different software fault predictions progressed through different data analytic techniques reported in the software engineering literature. This study split in three broad areas; (a) The description of software metrics suites reported and validated in the literature. (b) A brief outline of previous research published in the development of software fault prediction model based on various analytic techniques. This utilizes the taxonomy of analytic techniques while summarizing published research. (c) A review of the advantages of using the combination of metrics. Though, this area is comparatively new and needs more research efforts