Empirical Analysis of Rank Aggregation-Based Multi-Filter Feature Selection Methods in Software Defect Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the most suitable filter method that will produce a subset of features with the best performance remains an open problem that is known as filter rank selection problem. A viable solution to this problem is to independently apply a mixture of filter methods and evaluate the results. This study proposes novel rank aggregation-based multi-filter feature selection (FS) methods to address high dimensionality and filter rank selection problem in software defect prediction (SDP). The proposed methods combine rank lists generated by individual filter methods using rank aggregation mechanisms into a single aggregated rank list. The proposed methods aim to resolve the filter selection problem by using multiple filter methods of diverse computational characteristics to produce a dis-joint and complete feature rank list superior to individual filter rank methods. The effectiveness of the proposed method was evaluated with Decision Tree (DT) and Naïve Bayes (NB) models on defect datasets from NASA repository. From the experimental results, the proposed methods had a superior impact (positive) on prediction performances of NB and DT models than other experimented FS methods. This makes the combination of filter rank methods a viable solution to filter rank selection problem and enhancement of prediction models in SDP.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".