不同的人有不同的方法:一个针对不同缺陷类别的软件度量的案例研究

Ayse Tosun Misirli, Bora Caglayan, A. Miranskyy, A. Bener, Nuzio Ruffolo
{"title":"不同的人有不同的方法:一个针对不同缺陷类别的软件度量的案例研究","authors":"Ayse Tosun Misirli, Bora Caglayan, A. Miranskyy, A. Bener, Nuzio Ruffolo","doi":"10.1145/1985374.1985386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Defect prediction has been evolved with variety of metric sets, and defect types. Researchers found code, churn, and network metrics as significant indicators of defects. However, all metric sets may not be informative for all defect categories such that only one metric type may represent majority of a defect category. Our previous study showed that defect category sensitive prediction models are more successful than general models, since each category has different characteristics in terms of metrics. We extend our previous work, and propose specialized prediction models using churn, code, and network metrics with respect to three defect categories. Results show that churn metrics are the best for predicting all defects. The strength of correlation for code and network metrics varies with defect category: Network metrics have higher correlations than code metrics for defects reported during functional testing and in the field, and vice versa for defects reported during system testing.","PeriodicalId":103819,"journal":{"name":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different strokes for different folks: a case study on software metrics for different defect categories\",\"authors\":\"Ayse Tosun Misirli, Bora Caglayan, A. Miranskyy, A. Bener, Nuzio Ruffolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1985374.1985386\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Defect prediction has been evolved with variety of metric sets, and defect types. Researchers found code, churn, and network metrics as significant indicators of defects. However, all metric sets may not be informative for all defect categories such that only one metric type may represent majority of a defect category. Our previous study showed that defect category sensitive prediction models are more successful than general models, since each category has different characteristics in terms of metrics. We extend our previous work, and propose specialized prediction models using churn, code, and network metrics with respect to three defect categories. Results show that churn metrics are the best for predicting all defects. The strength of correlation for code and network metrics varies with defect category: Network metrics have higher correlations than code metrics for defects reported during functional testing and in the field, and vice versa for defects reported during system testing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1985374.1985386\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1985374.1985386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

缺陷预测已经随着各种度量集和缺陷类型而发展。研究人员发现代码、流失率和网络度量是缺陷的重要指示器。然而,所有的度量集可能不是为所有的缺陷类别提供信息,这样只有一个度量类型可以代表缺陷类别的大部分。我们之前的研究表明,缺陷类别敏感的预测模型比一般模型更成功,因为每个类别在度量方面具有不同的特征。我们扩展了之前的工作,并针对三个缺陷类别,使用流失、代码和网络度量提出了专门的预测模型。结果表明,流失度量是预测所有缺陷的最佳方法。代码和网络度量的相关性强度随缺陷类别的不同而变化:对于在功能测试和领域中报告的缺陷,网络度量比代码度量具有更高的相关性,对于在系统测试中报告的缺陷,反之亦然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Different strokes for different folks: a case study on software metrics for different defect categories
Defect prediction has been evolved with variety of metric sets, and defect types. Researchers found code, churn, and network metrics as significant indicators of defects. However, all metric sets may not be informative for all defect categories such that only one metric type may represent majority of a defect category. Our previous study showed that defect category sensitive prediction models are more successful than general models, since each category has different characteristics in terms of metrics. We extend our previous work, and propose specialized prediction models using churn, code, and network metrics with respect to three defect categories. Results show that churn metrics are the best for predicting all defects. The strength of correlation for code and network metrics varies with defect category: Network metrics have higher correlations than code metrics for defects reported during functional testing and in the field, and vice versa for defects reported during system testing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"May the fork be with you": novel metrics to analyze collaboration on GitHub A replicated study on correlating agile team velocity measured in function and story points Structural evolution of software: a social network perspective Towards a catalog format for software metrics Design test process in component-based software engineering: an analysis of requirements scalability
×
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