Software Defect Prediction Using an Intelligent Ensemble-Based Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software defect prediction plays a crucial role in enhancing software quality while achieving cost savings in testing. Its primary objective is to identify and send only defective modules to the testing stage. This research introduces an intelligent ensemble-based software defect prediction model that combines diverse classifiers. The proposed model employs a two-stage prediction process to detect defective modules. In the first stage, four supervised machine learning algorithms are employed: Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Naïve Bayes, and Artificial Neural Network. These algorithms are optimized through iterative parameter optimization to achieve the highest accuracy possible. In the second stage, the predictive accuracy of the individual classifiers is integrated into a voting ensemble to make the final predictions. This ensemble approach further improves the accuracy and reliability of the defect predictions. Seven historical defect datasets from the NASA MDP repository, namely CM1, JM1, MC2, MW1, PC1, PC3, and PC4, were utilized to implement and evaluate the proposed defect prediction system. The results demonstrate that each dataset’s proposed intelligent system achieved remarkable accuracy, outperforming twenty state-of-the-art defect prediction techniques, including base classifiers and ensemble methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".