努力感知的细粒度即时缺陷预测方法的评价

S. Amasaki, Hirohisa Aman, Tomoyuki Yokogawa
{"title":"努力感知的细粒度即时缺陷预测方法的评价","authors":"S. Amasaki, Hirohisa Aman, Tomoyuki Yokogawa","doi":"10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"CONTEXT: Software defect prediction (SDP) is an active research topic to support software quality assurance (SQA) activities. It was observed that unsupervised prediction models were often competitive with supervised ones at release-level and change-level defect prediction. Fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction focuses on defective files in a change, rather than the whole change. A recent study showed that the fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction was cost-effective in terms of effort-aware performance measures. Those studies did not explore the effectiveness of supervised and unsupervised models at that finer level in terms of effort-aware performance measures. OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of supervised and unsupervised prediction models in the context of fine-grained defect prediction in terms of effort-aware performance measures. METHOD: Experiments with a time-sensitive approach were conducted to evaluate the predictive performance of supervised and unsupervised methods proposed in past studies. Datasets from OSS projects with manually validated defect links were employed from a past study. RESULTS: The use of manually validated links led to low-performance results. No clear difference among supervised and unsupervised methods was found while CBS+, a supervised method, was the best method in terms of F-measure. Even CBS+ did not achieve reasonable performance. A non-linear learning algorithm did not help the performance improvement. CONCLUSION: No clear preference among unsupervised and supervised methods. CBS+ was the best method on average. The predictive performance was still a challenge.","PeriodicalId":269970,"journal":{"name":"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Effort-Aware Fine-Grained Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Methods\",\"authors\":\"S. Amasaki, Hirohisa Aman, Tomoyuki Yokogawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"CONTEXT: Software defect prediction (SDP) is an active research topic to support software quality assurance (SQA) activities. It was observed that unsupervised prediction models were often competitive with supervised ones at release-level and change-level defect prediction. Fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction focuses on defective files in a change, rather than the whole change. A recent study showed that the fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction was cost-effective in terms of effort-aware performance measures. Those studies did not explore the effectiveness of supervised and unsupervised models at that finer level in terms of effort-aware performance measures. OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of supervised and unsupervised prediction models in the context of fine-grained defect prediction in terms of effort-aware performance measures. METHOD: Experiments with a time-sensitive approach were conducted to evaluate the predictive performance of supervised and unsupervised methods proposed in past studies. Datasets from OSS projects with manually validated defect links were employed from a past study. RESULTS: The use of manually validated links led to low-performance results. No clear difference among supervised and unsupervised methods was found while CBS+, a supervised method, was the best method in terms of F-measure. Even CBS+ did not achieve reasonable performance. A non-linear learning algorithm did not help the performance improvement. CONCLUSION: No clear preference among unsupervised and supervised methods. CBS+ was the best method on average. The predictive performance was still a challenge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:软件缺陷预测(SDP)是支持软件质量保证(SQA)活动的一个活跃的研究课题。可以观察到,在发布级和变更级缺陷预测中,非监督预测模型经常与监督预测模型竞争。细粒度的即时缺陷预测关注于变更中的缺陷文件,而不是整个变更。最近的一项研究表明,细粒度的及时缺陷预测在工作感知性能度量方面是具有成本效益的。这些研究并没有探索监督和非监督模型在努力意识绩效衡量方面的有效性。目的:从努力感知性能度量的角度,检验监督和非监督预测模型在细粒度缺陷预测背景下的性能。方法:采用时间敏感方法进行实验,以评估过去研究中提出的有监督和无监督方法的预测性能。从过去的研究中使用了带有手动验证缺陷链接的OSS项目的数据集。结果:使用手动验证链接导致低性能结果。有监督方法与无监督方法无明显差异,而有监督方法CBS+在F-measure上是最好的方法。即使CBS+也没有达到合理的表现。非线性学习算法无助于性能的提高。结论:无监督与有监督方法无明显的优劣性。CBS+平均来说是最好的方法。预测性能仍然是一个挑战。
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
An Evaluation of Effort-Aware Fine-Grained Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Methods
CONTEXT: Software defect prediction (SDP) is an active research topic to support software quality assurance (SQA) activities. It was observed that unsupervised prediction models were often competitive with supervised ones at release-level and change-level defect prediction. Fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction focuses on defective files in a change, rather than the whole change. A recent study showed that the fine-grained just-in-time defect prediction was cost-effective in terms of effort-aware performance measures. Those studies did not explore the effectiveness of supervised and unsupervised models at that finer level in terms of effort-aware performance measures. OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of supervised and unsupervised prediction models in the context of fine-grained defect prediction in terms of effort-aware performance measures. METHOD: Experiments with a time-sensitive approach were conducted to evaluate the predictive performance of supervised and unsupervised methods proposed in past studies. Datasets from OSS projects with manually validated defect links were employed from a past study. RESULTS: The use of manually validated links led to low-performance results. No clear difference among supervised and unsupervised methods was found while CBS+, a supervised method, was the best method in terms of F-measure. Even CBS+ did not achieve reasonable performance. A non-linear learning algorithm did not help the performance improvement. CONCLUSION: No clear preference among unsupervised and supervised methods. CBS+ was the best method on average. The predictive performance was still a challenge.
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
Service Classification through Machine Learning: Aiding in the Efficient Identification of Reusable Assets in Cloud Application Development Handling Environmental Uncertainty in Design Time Access Control Analysis How are software datasets constructed in Empirical Software Engineering studies? A systematic mapping study Microservices smell detection through dynamic analysis Towards Secure Agile Software Development Process: A Practice-Based Model
×
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