2011 Joint Conference of the 21st International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 6th International Conference on Softwa 2011
DOI: 10.1109/iwsm-mensura.2011.15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmark-Based Aggregation of Metrics to Ratings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using lines of code as weight, they select the code metric values relative to the 70%, 80%, and 90% percentiles of the accumulated weight, and uses these as thresholds. They also improved the work to include the calibration of benchmark-based thresholds from code to system level (Alves et al 2011). Fontana et al (2015 worked on an algorithm to automatically identify these 3 percentiles.…”
Section: Detection Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using lines of code as weight, they select the code metric values relative to the 70%, 80%, and 90% percentiles of the accumulated weight, and uses these as thresholds. They also improved the work to include the calibration of benchmark-based thresholds from code to system level (Alves et al 2011). Fontana et al (2015 worked on an algorithm to automatically identify these 3 percentiles.…”
Section: Detection Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, we opted for a benchmark based aggregation approach. Given the power-law distribution of the data (see Figure 2) we use the risk based aggregation approach of Alves et al [13] [14].…”
Section: Dependency Freshness At the System-levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Calibration was done against a benchmark, following the methodology that was also used to calibrate the SIG quality model [67], [55]. …”
Section: Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a similar fashion to the SIG quality model (Section 2.3 and [67], [55]), we want to come to a star rating with a 5-point scale for the test code quality of software systems. We define the quality levels so that they correspond to a < 5, 30, 30, 30, 5 > percentage-wise distribution of the systems in the benchmark.…”
Section: Risk Categories and Quality Ratingsmentioning
confidence: 99%