The accuracy of fault prediction in modified code - statistical model vs. expert estimation

Piotr Tomaszewski, Jim Håkansson, L. Lundberg, Håkan Grahn
{"title":"The accuracy of fault prediction in modified code - statistical model vs. expert estimation","authors":"Piotr Tomaszewski, Jim Håkansson, L. Lundberg, Håkan Grahn","doi":"10.1109/ECBS.2006.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fault prediction models still seem to be more popular in academia than in industry. In industry, expert estimations of fault proneness are the most popular methods of deciding where to focus the fault detection efforts. In this paper, we present a study in which we empirically evaluate the accuracy of fault prediction offered by statistical models as compared to expert estimations. The study is industry based. It involves a large telecommunication system and experts that were involved in the development of this system. Expert estimations are compared to simple prediction models built on another large system, also from the telecommunication domain. We show that the statistical methods clearly outperform the expert estimations. As the main reason for the superiority of the statistical models we see their ability to cope with large datasets, which results in their ability to perform reliable predictions for larger number of components in the system, as well as the ability to perform prediction at a more fine-grain level, e.g., at the class instead of at the component level","PeriodicalId":430872,"journal":{"name":"13th Annual IEEE International Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'06)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"13th Annual IEEE International Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'06)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.2006.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Fault prediction models still seem to be more popular in academia than in industry. In industry, expert estimations of fault proneness are the most popular methods of deciding where to focus the fault detection efforts. In this paper, we present a study in which we empirically evaluate the accuracy of fault prediction offered by statistical models as compared to expert estimations. The study is industry based. It involves a large telecommunication system and experts that were involved in the development of this system. Expert estimations are compared to simple prediction models built on another large system, also from the telecommunication domain. We show that the statistical methods clearly outperform the expert estimations. As the main reason for the superiority of the statistical models we see their ability to cope with large datasets, which results in their ability to perform reliable predictions for larger number of components in the system, as well as the ability to perform prediction at a more fine-grain level, e.g., at the class instead of at the component level
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
修正代码统计模型与专家估计的故障预测精度
故障预测模型似乎在学术界比在工业界更受欢迎。在工业中,专家对故障倾向性的估计是决定故障检测工作重点的最常用方法。在本文中,我们提出了一项研究,我们经验评估统计模型提供的故障预测的准确性与专家估计相比较。这项研究是基于行业的。它涉及到一个庞大的电信系统和参与该系统开发的专家。将专家估计与建立在另一个大型系统(也来自电信领域)上的简单预测模型进行比较。结果表明,统计方法明显优于专家估计。作为统计模型的优势的主要原因,我们看到了它们处理大型数据集的能力,这导致它们能够对系统中更多的组件执行可靠的预测,以及在更细粒度的级别上执行预测的能力,例如,在类而不是组件级别
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
Rava: designing a Java extension with dynamic object roles Standardized content service system for distributed e-learning resource Requirements engineering for the adviser portal bank system Requirements for distributed mission-critical decision support systems Conceptual patterns
×
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