Homogenous Multiple Classifier System for Software Quality Assessment Based on Support Vector Machine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today's society, almost all human endeavours depend on software products. Lack of quality software is one of the software industry's most important problems. Hence, it would be beneficial to access the quality of software to improve and enhance software products while increasing customer satisfaction. This paper assesses software product quality using a Support Vector Machine-based ensemble classifier. The ISO/IEC-9126 (International Organization for Standardization 2001) software quality (SQ) framework was adopted in this work. Dimension reduction of the product metric category dataset and the entire PM dataset was conducted using linear discriminant analysis (LDA). SVM kernel functions (linear, quadratic, cubic, fine gaussian, medium gaussian and coarse gaussian) were used to model each classifier. The combinations of the results from the multiple SVMs used AdaBoost, bagging, and random subspace ensemble methods for the assessment of SQ. All three ensemble learning methods performed better than the individual SVM, however, the bagging stood out with an accuracy of 93.0%. Hence, it was adopted in the fusion of the SVM results and classification of SQ into classes. Results from the confusion matrix and receivers’ operating characteristics were greater than 97.99% and confirm significant improvements with an ensemble of homogenous classifiers based on SVM.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".