Applying Novel Resampling Strategies To Software Defect Prediction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the tremendous complexity and sophistication of software, improving software reliability is an enormously difficult task. We study the software defect prediction problem, which focuses on predicting which modules will experience a failure during operation. Numerous studies have applied machine learning to software defect prediction; however, skewness in defect-prediction datasets usually undermines the learning algorithms. The resulting classifiers will often never predict the faulty minority class. This problem is well known in machine learning and is often referred to as learning from unbalanced datasets. We examine stratification, a widely used technique for learning unbalanced data that has received little attention in software defect prediction. Our experiments are focused on the SMOTE technique, which is a method of over-sampling minority-class examples. Our goal is to determine if SMOTE can improve recognition of defect-prone modules, and at what cost. Our experiments demonstrate that after SMOTE resampling, we have a more balanced classification. We found an improvement of at least 23% in the average geometric mean classification accuracy on four benchmark datasets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it