Applying Machine Learning Classification to Determining Outliers in Effort for Embedded Software Development Projects

Iwata, Kazunori; Nakashima, Toyoshiro; Anan, Yoshiyuki; Ishii, Naohiro

doi:10.1109/csii.2019.00021

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, many studies have used the k-means algorithm for clustering to improve software effort estimation, see, for example, [37]- [44]. Therefore, this study also used the kmeans algorithm for clustering.…”

Section: Figure 1 Distribution Of Clustering Methods Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Business Area Type (BAT) [45], [47], [53] 9 Primary Programming Language (PPL) [49], [52] 10 Application Group (AG) [36], [52] 11 1st Database System (1DB) [52], [55] 12 Used Methodology (UM) [52], [56] 13 Count Approach (CA) [47], [57] 14 Project Type (PT) [54] 15 Resources Level (RL) [56] 16 1st Operation System (1OS) [57] 17 K-Means Algorithm [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]…”

Section: Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward Improving the Efficiency of Software Development Effort Estimation via Clustering Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The precise estimation of software effort is a significant difficulty that project managers encounter during software development. Inaccurate forecasting leads to either overestimating or underestimating software effort, which can be detrimental for stakeholders. The International Function Point Users Group's Function Point Analysis (FPA) method is one of the most critical methods for software effort estimation. However, the practice of using the FPA method in the same fashion across all software areas needs to be reexamined. Aim: We propose a model for evaluating the influence of data clustering on software development effort estimation and then finding the best clustering method. We call this model the effort estimation using machine learning applied to the clusters (EEAC) model. Method: We cluster the dataset according to the clustering method and then apply the FPA and EEAC methods to these clusters for effort estimation. The clustering methods we use in this study include five categorical variable criteria (Development Platform, Industrial Sector, Language Type, Organization Type, and Relative Size) and the k-means clustering algorithm. Results: The experimental results show that the estimation accuracy obtaining with clustering consistently outperforms the accuracy without clustering for both the FPA and EEAC methods. Significantly, using the FPA method, the average improvement rate from using clustering as opposed to non-clustered was highest at 58.06%, according to the RMSE. With the EEAC method, this number reached 65.53%. The Industry Sector categorical variable achieves the best accuracy estimation compared to the other clustering criteria and k-means clustering. The improvement in accuracy in terms of the RMSE when applying this criterion is 63.68% for the FPA method and 72.02% for the EEAC method. Conclusion: Better results are obtained through dataset clustering compared to no clustering for both the FPA and EEAC methods. The Industry Sector is the most suitable clustering method among the tested clustering methods.

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Distribution Of Clustering Methods Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%