The predictive validity criterion for evaluating binary classifiers

K. El Emam
{"title":"The predictive validity criterion for evaluating binary classifiers","authors":"K. El Emam","doi":"10.1109/METRIC.1998.731250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The development of binary classifiers to identify highly error-prone or high maintenance cost components is increasing in the software engineering quality modeling literature and in practice. One approach for evaluating these classifiers is to determine their ability to predict the classes of unseen cases, i.e., predictive validity. A chi-square statistical test has been frequently used to evaluate predictive validity. We illustrate that this test has a number of disadvantages. The disadvantages include a difficulty in using the results of the test to determine whether a classifier is a good predictor, demonstrated through a number of examples, and a rather conservative Type I error rate, demonstrated through a Monte Carlo simulation. We present an alternative test that has been used in the social sciences for evaluating agreement with a \"gold standard\". The use of this alternative test is illustrated in practice by developing a classification model to predict maintenance effort for an object oriented system, and evaluating its predictive validity on data from a second object-oriented system in the same environment.","PeriodicalId":444081,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.1998.731250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The development of binary classifiers to identify highly error-prone or high maintenance cost components is increasing in the software engineering quality modeling literature and in practice. One approach for evaluating these classifiers is to determine their ability to predict the classes of unseen cases, i.e., predictive validity. A chi-square statistical test has been frequently used to evaluate predictive validity. We illustrate that this test has a number of disadvantages. The disadvantages include a difficulty in using the results of the test to determine whether a classifier is a good predictor, demonstrated through a number of examples, and a rather conservative Type I error rate, demonstrated through a Monte Carlo simulation. We present an alternative test that has been used in the social sciences for evaluating agreement with a "gold standard". The use of this alternative test is illustrated in practice by developing a classification model to predict maintenance effort for an object oriented system, and evaluating its predictive validity on data from a second object-oriented system in the same environment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估二元分类器的预测有效性准则
在软件工程质量建模文献和实践中,用于识别易出错或高维护成本组件的二元分类器的开发正在增加。评估这些分类器的一种方法是确定它们预测未见案例类别的能力,即预测有效性。卡方统计检验常用于评估预测效度。我们说明这个测试有一些缺点。缺点包括很难使用测试的结果来确定分类器是否是一个好的预测器(通过许多例子证明),以及相当保守的I型错误率(通过蒙特卡罗模拟证明)。我们提出了一种在社会科学中用于评估与“金标准”的协议的替代测试。通过开发一个分类模型来预测面向对象系统的维护工作,并评估其对来自同一环境中的第二个面向对象系统的数据的预测有效性,在实践中说明了这种替代测试的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Taking the mystery out of experimental design-and a proposal Using metrics to identify design patterns in object-oriented software Getting a handle on the fault injection process: validation of measurement tools Software metrics decision support system On the validation of relative test complexity for object-oriented code
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1