Interpretable Software Defect Prediction from Project Effort and Static Code Metrics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software defect prediction models enable test managers to predict defect-prone modules and assist with delivering quality products. A test manager would be willing to identify the attributes that can influence defect prediction and should be able to trust the model outcomes. The objective of this research is to create software defect prediction models with a focus on interpretability. Additionally, it aims to investigate the impact of size, complexity, and other source code metrics on the prediction of software defects. This research also assesses the reliability of cross-project defect prediction. Well-known machine learning techniques, such as support vector machines, k-nearest neighbors, random forest classifiers, and artificial neural networks, were applied to publicly available PROMISE datasets. The interpretability of this approach was demonstrated by SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) techniques. The developed interpretable software defect prediction models showed reliability on independent and cross-project data. Finally, the results demonstrate that static code metrics can contribute to the defect prediction models, and the inclusion of explainability assists in establishing trust in the developed models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it