On the value of filter feature selection techniques in homogeneous ensembles effort estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Software development effort estimation (SDEE) remains as the principal activity in software project management planning. Over the past four decades, several methods have been proposed to estimate the effort required to develop a software system, including more recently machine learning (ML) techniques. Because ML performance accuracy depends on the features that feed the ML technique, selecting the appropriate features in the preprocessing data step is important. This paper investigates three filter feature selection techniques to check the predictive capability of four single ML techniques: K ‐nearest neighbor, support vector regression, multilayer perceptron, and decision trees and their homogeneous ensembles over six well‐known datasets. Furthermore, the single and ensembles techniques were optimized using the grid search optimization method. The results suggest that the three filter feature selection techniques investigated improve the reasonability and the accuracy performance of the four single techniques. Moreover, the homogeneous ensembles are statistically more accurate than the single techniques. Finally, adopting a random process (i.e., random subspace method) to select the inputs feature for ML technique is not always effective to generate an accurate homogeneous ensemble.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".