DEFECT PREDICTION USING CASE-BASED REASONING: AN ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTING TECHNIQUE BASED UPON SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN NEURAL NETWORKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software defect prediction is an acknowledged approach used to achieve better product quality and to better utilize resources needed for that purpose. One known method for predicting the number of defects is to apply case-based reasoning (CBR). In this paper, different attribute weighting techniques for CBR-based defect prediction are analyzed. One of the weighting techniques used in this work, Sensitivity Analysis based on Neural Networks (SANN), is based on sensitivity analysis of the impact of attributes as part of neural network analysis. Neural networks are applicable when there are non-linear and complicated relationships among the attributes. Since weighting plays a key role in the CBR model, using an efficient weight calculation method can change the results. The results of SANN are compared with applying uniform weights and weights gained from Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). Evaluation of the accuracy of the overall method for applying the three different weighting techniques is done over five data sets, comprising about 5000 modules from NASA. Two quality measures are applied: Average Absolute Error (AAE) and Average Relative Error (ARE). In addition to the variation of weighting techniques, the impact of varying the number of nearest neighbors is studied. The three main results of the empirical analysis are: (i) In the majority of cases, SANN achieves the most accurate results; (ii) uniform weighting performs better than the MLR-based weighting heuristic; and (iii) there is no significant preference pattern for defining the number of similar objects used for prediction in CBR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".