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

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

Too Trivial To Test? An Inverse View on Defect Prediction to Identify Methods with Low Fault Risk

Background. Test resources are usually limited and therefore it is often not possible to completely test an application before a release. To cope with the problem of scarce resources, development teams can apply defect prediction to identify fault-prone code regions. However, defect prediction tends to low precision in cross-project prediction scenarios. Aims. We take an inverse view on defect prediction and aim to identify methods that can be deferred when testing because they contain hardly any faults due to their code being "trivial". We expect that characteristics of such methods might be project-independent, so that our approach could improve cross-project predictions. Method. We compute code metrics and apply association rule mining to create rules for identifying methods with low fault risk. We conduct an empirical study to assess our approach with six Java open-source projects containing precise fault data at the method level. Results. Our results show that inverse defect prediction can identify approx. 32-44% of the methods of a project to have a low fault risk; on average, they are about six times less likely to contain a fault than other methods. In cross-project predictions with larger, more diversified training sets, identified methods are even eleven times less likely to contain a fault. Conclusions. Inverse defect prediction supports the efficient allocation of test resources by identifying methods that can be treated with less priority in testing activities and is well applicable in cross-project prediction scenarios.Comment: Submitted to PeerJ C

The impact of using biased performance metrics on software defect prediction research

Context: Software engineering researchers have undertaken many experiments investigating the potential of software defect prediction algorithms. Unfortunately, some widely used performance metrics are known to be problematic, most notably F1, but nevertheless F1 is widely used. Objective: To investigate the potential impact of using F1 on the validity of this large body of research. Method: We undertook a systematic review to locate relevant experiments and then extract all pairwise comparisons of defect prediction performance using F1 and the un-biased Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Results: We found a total of 38 primary studies. These contain 12,471 pairs of results. Of these, 21.95% changed direction when the MCC metric is used instead of the biased F1 metric. Unfortunately, we also found evidence suggesting that F1 remains widely used in software defect prediction research. Conclusions: We reiterate the concerns of statisticians that the F1 is a problematic metric outside of an information retrieval context, since we are concerned about both classes (defect-prone and not defect-prone units). This inappropriate usage has led to a substantial number (more than one fifth) of erroneous (in terms of direction) results. Therefore we urge researchers to (i) use an unbiased metric and (ii) publish detailed results including confusion matrices such that alternative analyses become possible.Comment: Submitted to the journal Information & Software Technology. It is a greatly extended version of "Assessing Software Defection Prediction Performance: Why Using the Matthews Correlation Coefficient Matters" presented at EASE 202