Empirical Investigation of Code and Process Metrics for Defect Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data science is becoming more important for software engineering problems. Software defect prediction is a critical area which can help the development team allocate test resource efficiently and better understand the root cause of defects. Furthermore, it can help find the reason why a component or even a project is failure-prone. This paper deals with binary classification in predicting if a software component has a bug by using three widely used machine learning algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Neural Networks (NN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The paper investigates the applications of these algorithms to the challenging issue of predicting defects in software components. This paper combines code metrics and process metrics as indicators for the Eclipse environment using the aforementioned three algorithms for a sample of weekly Eclipse features. Feature reduction is also adopted using General Linear Model (GLM) to save computational time. The results confirm the predictive capabilities of using two features -- NBD_max and Pre-defects -- and are comparable to the results of using all 61 features. Additionally, this paper evaluates the performance of the three algorithms. NN and RF turn out to have the best fit.
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 | 0.009 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".