An Empirical Study of Training Data Selection Methods for Ranking-Oriented Cross-Project Defect Prediction
Ranking-oriented cross-project defect prediction (ROCPDP), which ranks software modules of a new target industrial project based on the predicted defect number or density, has been suggested in the literature. A major concern of ROCPDP is the distribution difference between the source project (aka....
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/59a58f66c75b4c9ba2125e2709250132 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Ranking-oriented cross-project defect prediction (ROCPDP), which ranks software modules of a new target industrial project based on the predicted defect number or density, has been suggested in the literature. A major concern of ROCPDP is the distribution difference between the source project (aka. within-project) data and target project (aka. cross-project) data, which evidently degrades prediction performance. To investigate the impacts of training data selection methods on the performances of ROCPDP models, we examined the practical effects of nine training data selection methods, including a global filter, which does not filter out any cross-project data. Additionally, the prediction performances of ROCPDP models trained on the filtered cross-project data using the training data selection methods were compared with those of ranking-oriented within-project defect prediction (ROWPDP) models trained on sufficient and limited within-project data. Eleven available defect datasets from the industrial projects were considered and evaluated using two ranking performance measures, i.e., FPA and Norm(Popt). The results showed no statistically significant differences among these nine training data selection methods in terms of FPA and Norm(Popt). The performances of ROCPDP models trained on filtered cross-project data were not comparable with those of ROWPDP models trained on sufficient historical within-project data. However, ROCPDP models trained on filtered cross-project data achieved better performance values than ROWPDP models trained on limited historical within-project data. Therefore, we recommended that software quality teams exploit other project datasets to perform ROCPDP when there is no or limited within-project data. |
|---|