Software Fault Prediction Based on Fault Probability and Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, software tests prioritization is a crucial task. Indeed, testing exhaustively the whole software system can be very difficult, heavily time and resources consuming. Using machine learning algorithms to predict which parts of a software system are fault-prone can help testers to focus on high-risk parts of the code and improve resources allocation. This paper aims to investigate the potential of a risk-based model to predict fault-prone classes. The risk of classes is evaluated based on two factors: the probability that a class is fault-prone and its impact on the rest of the system. We used object-oriented metrics to capture the two risk factors. The risk of a class is modeled using the Euclidean distance. We built various variants of the risk-based model using a data-set from five versions of the ANT system. We used different machine learning algorithms (Naive Bayes, J48, Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, Multilayer Perceptron and Logistic Regression) to construct various models for fault and level of severity prediction. The objective was to distinguish between classes containing trivial and high severity faults. The considered model achieves good results for binary fault prediction. In addition, the overall multi-classification of severity levels is more than acceptable.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".