Think locally, act globally: Improving defect and effort prediction models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research energy in software engineering is focused on the creation of effort and defect prediction models. Such models are important means for practitioners to judge their current project situation, optimize the allocation of their resources, and make informed future decisions. However, software engineering data contains a large amount of variability. Recent research demonstrates that such variability leads to poor fits of machine learning models to the underlying data, and suggests splitting datasets into more fine-grained subsets with similar properties. In this paper, we present a comparison of three different approaches for creating statistical regression models to model and predict software defects and development effort. Global models are trained on the whole dataset. In contrast, local models are trained on subsets of the dataset. Last, we build a global model that takes into account local characteristics of the data. We evaluate the performance of these three approaches in a case study on two defect and two effort datasets. We find that for both types of data, local models show a significantly increased fit to the data compared to global models. The substantial improvements in both relative and absolute prediction errors demonstrate that this increased goodness of fit is valuable in practice. Finally, our experiments suggest that trends obtained from global models are too general for practical recommendations. At the same time, local models provide a multitude of trends which are only valid for specific subsets of the data. Instead, we advocate the use of trends obtained from global models that take into account local characteristics, as they combine the best of both worlds.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".