Revisiting the Impact of Classification Techniques on the Performance of Defect Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defect prediction models help software quality assurance teams to effectively allocate their limited resources to the most defect-prone software modules. A variety of classification techniques have been used to build defect prediction models ranging from simple (e.g., Logistic regression) to advanced techniques (e.g., Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS)). Surprisingly, recent research on the NASA dataset suggests that the performance of a defect prediction model is not significantly impacted by the classification technique that is used to train it. However, the dataset that is used in the prior study is both: (a) noisy, i.e., Contains erroneous entries and (b) biased, i.e., Only contains software developed in one setting. Hence, we set out to replicate this prior study in two experimental settings. First, we apply the replicated procedure to the same (known-to-be noisy) NASA dataset, where we derive similar results to the prior study, i.e., The impact that classification techniques have appear to be minimal. Next, we apply the replicated procedure to two new datasets: (a) the cleaned version of the NASA dataset and (b) the PROMISE dataset, which contains open source software developed in a variety of settings (e.g., Apache, GNU). The results in these new datasets show a clear, statistically distinct separation of groups of techniques, i.e., The choice of classification technique has an impact on the performance of defect prediction models. Indeed, contrary to earlier research, our results suggest that some classification techniques tend to produce defect prediction models that outperform others.
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 | 0.039 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".