Predicting Fault-Prone Classes in Object-Oriented Software: An Adaptation of an Unsupervised Hybrid SOM Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many fault-proneness prediction models have been proposed in literature to identify fault-prone code in software systems. Most of the approaches use fault data history and supervised learning algorithms to build these models. However, since fault data history is not always available, some approaches also suggest using semi-supervised or unsupervised fault-proneness prediction models. The HySOM model, proposed in literature, uses function-level source code metrics to predict fault-prone functions in software systems, without using any fault data. In this paper, we adapt the HySOM approach for object-oriented software systems to predict fault-prone code at class-level granularity using object-oriented source code metrics. This adaptation makes it easier to prioritize the efforts of the testing team as unit tests are often written for classes in object-oriented software systems, and not for methods. Our adaptation also generalizes one main element of the HySOM model, which is the calculation of the source code metrics threshold values. We conducted an empirical study using 12 public datasets. Results show that the adaptation of the HySOM model for class-level fault-proneness prediction improves the consistency and the performance of the model. We additionally compared the performance of the adapted model to supervised approaches based on the Naive Bayes Network, ANN and Random Forest algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".