Are Smell-Based Metrics Actually Useful in Effort-Aware Structural Change-Proneness Prediction? An Empirical Study

Bad code smells (also named as code smells) are symptoms of poor design choices in implementation. Existing studies empirically confirmed that the presence of code smells increases the likelihood of subsequent changes (i.e., change-proness). However, to the best of our knowledge, no prior studies have leveraged smell-based metrics to predict particular change type (i.e., structural changes). Moreover, when evaluating the effectiveness of smell-based metrics in structural change-proneness prediction, none of existing studies take into account of the effort inspecting those change-prone source code. In this paper, we consider five smell-based metrics for effort-aware structural change-proneness prediction and compare these metrics with a baseline of well-known CK metrics in predicting particular categories of change types. Specifically, we first employ univariate logistic regression to analyze the correlation between each smellbased metric and structural change-proneness. Then, we build multivariate prediction models to examine the effectiveness of smell-based metrics in effort-aware structural change-proneness prediction when used alone and used together with the baseline metrics, respectively. Our experiments are conducted on six Java open-source projects with up to 60 versions and results indicate that: (1) all smell-based metrics are significantly related to structural change-proneness, except metric ANS in hive and SCM in camel after removing confounding effect of file size; (2) in most cases, smell-based metrics outperform the baseline metrics in predicting structural change-proneness; and (3) when used together with the baseline metrics, the smell-based metrics are more effective to predict change-prone files with being aware of inspection effort

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

Connecting Software Metrics across Versions to Predict Defects

Accurate software defect prediction could help software practitioners allocate test resources to defect-prone modules effectively and efficiently. In the last decades, much effort has been devoted to build accurate defect prediction models, including developing quality defect predictors and modeling techniques. However, current widely used defect predictors such as code metrics and process metrics could not well describe how software modules change over the project evolution, which we believe is important for defect prediction. In order to deal with this problem, in this paper, we propose to use the Historical Version Sequence of Metrics (HVSM) in continuous software versions as defect predictors. Furthermore, we leverage Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), a popular modeling technique, to take HVSM as the input to build software prediction models. The experimental results show that, in most cases, the proposed HVSM-based RNN model has a significantly better effort-aware ranking effectiveness than the commonly used baseline models