An Adaptive Rank Aggregation-Based Ensemble Multi-Filter Feature Selection Method in Software Defect Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature selection is known to be an applicable solution to address the problem of high dimensionality in software defect prediction (SDP). However, choosing an appropriate filter feature selection (FFS) method that will generate and guarantee optimal features in SDP is an open research issue, known as the filter rank selection problem. As a solution, the combination of multiple filter methods can alleviate the filter rank selection problem. In this study, a novel adaptive rank aggregation-based ensemble multi-filter feature selection (AREMFFS) method is proposed to resolve high dimensionality and filter rank selection problems in SDP. Specifically, the proposed AREMFFS method is based on assessing and combining the strengths of individual FFS methods by aggregating multiple rank lists in the generation and subsequent selection of top-ranked features to be used in the SDP process. The efficacy of the proposed AREMFFS method is evaluated with decision tree (DT) and naïve Bayes (NB) models on defect datasets from different repositories with diverse defect granularities. Findings from the experimental results indicated the superiority of AREMFFS over other baseline FFS methods that were evaluated, existing rank aggregation based multi-filter FS methods, and variants of AREMFFS as developed in this study. That is, the proposed AREMFFS method not only had a superior effect on prediction performances of SDP models but also outperformed baseline FS methods and existing rank aggregation based multi-filter FS methods. Therefore, this study recommends the combination of multiple FFS methods to utilize the strength of respective FFS methods and take advantage of filter-filter relationships in selecting optimal features for SDP processes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".