Feature Importance in the Context of Traditional and Just-In-Time Software Defect Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software defect prediction models can assist software testing initiatives by prioritizing testing error-prone modules. In recent years, in addition to the traditional defect prediction model approach of predicting defects from class, modules, etc., Just-In-Time defect prediction research, which focuses on the change history of software products is becoming prominent. For building these defect prediction models, it is important to understand which features are primary contributors to these classifiers. This study considered developing defect prediction models incorporating the traditional and the Just-In-Time approaches from the publicly available datasets including the Apache Camel project. A multi-layer Deep Learning algorithm was applied to these datasets in comparison with machine learning algorithms. The prediction models developed using the Deep Learning algorithm achieved an accuracy of 80% and 86%, with the area under receiving operator curve (AUC) scores of 66% and 78% for traditional and Just-In-Time defect prediction, respectively. Finally, the feature importance of these models was identified using a model-specific integrated gradient method and a model-agnostic Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) technique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".