Predicting Software Perfection Through Advanced Models to Uncover and Prevent Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software defect prediction is a critical task in software engineering, enabling organizations to proactively identify and address potential issues in software systems, thereby improving quality and reducing costs. In this study, we evaluated and compared various machine learning models, including logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), support vector machines (SVMs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), for software defect prediction using a combination of diverse datasets. The models were trained and tested on preprocessed and feature‐selected data, followed by optimization through hyperparameter tuning. Performance evaluation metrics were employed to analyze the results comprehensively, including classification reports, confusion matrices, receiver operating characteristic–area under the curve (ROC‐AUC) curves, precision–recall curves, and cumulative gain charts. The results revealed that XGBoost consistently outperformed other models, achieving the highest accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC scores across all metrics. This indicates its robustness and suitability for predicting software defects in real‐world applications.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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".