Support vector regression‐based imputation in analogy‐based software development effort estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Missing data (MD) is a widespread problem that can affect the ability to use data to construct effective software development effort estimation (SDEE) techniques. To deal with this challenge, several imputation techniques have been investigated in SDEE and k‐nearest neighbors (KNN)‐based imputation is still the most frequently used. To the best of our knowledge, no study has used support vector regression (SVR)‐based imputation to construct accurate estimation techniques, in particular those based on analogy. This paper introduces a new imputation technique based on SVR for handling MD in two analogy‐based SDEE techniques: classical analogy and fuzzy analogy. More specifically, we investigate whether the use of SVR instead of KNN in imputing MD improves the predictive performance of these two analogy‐based techniques. A total of 1134 experiments were conducted involving seven datasets, SVR/KNN MD imputation techniques (KNN with Euclidean and Manhattan distances), three missingness mechanisms (missing completely at random, missing at random, non‐ignorable missing), and MD percentages from 10% to 90%. The results suggest that the use of SVR imputation, rather than KNN imputation, may improve the prediction performance of both analogy‐based techniques. Furthermore, we found that the impact of MD percentage upon effort prediction performance is reduced when using SVR rather than KNN. Moreover, fuzzy analogy generates better estimates in terms of the standardized accuracy measure than classical analogy regardless of the MD technique, the dataset used, the missingness mechanism, or the MD percentage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".