2018
DOI: 10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple‐components weights model for cross‐project software defect prediction

Abstract: Software defect prediction (SDP) technology is receiving widely attention and most of SDP models are trained on data from the same project. However, at an early phase of the software lifecycle, there are little to no within-project training data to learn an available supervised defect-prediction model. Thus, cross-project defect prediction (CPDP), which is learning a defect predictor for a target project by using labelled data from a source project, has shown promising value in SDP. To better perform the CPDP,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Chen et al [24] first initialized the weights of source project data by the data gravitation method and adjusted them with a limited amount of labelled data in the target project by building a prediction model named TrAdaboost [25]. Qiu et al [26] constructed a novel multiple-components weights learning model with the kernel mean matching (KMM) algorithm. It divides the source project data into several components, and KMM is applied to adjust the source-instance weights in each component.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chen et al [24] first initialized the weights of source project data by the data gravitation method and adjusted them with a limited amount of labelled data in the target project by building a prediction model named TrAdaboost [25]. Qiu et al [26] constructed a novel multiple-components weights learning model with the kernel mean matching (KMM) algorithm. It divides the source project data into several components, and KMM is applied to adjust the source-instance weights in each component.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To verify the validity of the TCNN method, we selected 10 open-source projects as our evaluation datasets. The source code and corresponding PROMISE data for all 10 projects are public and have been widely used in SDP research [21,[25][26][27]. In our experiments, we extracted DL-generated features from the Java source code and adopted the static code metrics and data labels from the PROMISE repository.…”
Section: Evaluated Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are other measures (e.g., AUC and G-measure) that can be used for performance evaluation of dichotomous classifiers. In fact, the F-measure as a comprehensive measurement is a commonly-used evaluation metric in SDP tasks [21,25,26,[35][36][37].…”
Section: The F-measure Might Not Be the Only Appropriate Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Yang Liu. and the target project are from the same project, SDP can be divided into Within-Project Defect Prediction (WPDP) [19], [34], [35], [44] and Cross-Project Defect Prediction (CPDP) [32]. In the early stages of a project, it is difficult for WPDP to build a feasible predictive model due to the lack of labeled file information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%