Abstract
In order to improve the quality of a software system, software defect prediction aims to automatically identify defective software modules for efficient software test. To predict software defect, those classification methods with static code attributes have attracted a great deal of attention. In recent years, machine learning techniques have been applied to defect prediction. Due to the fact that there exists the similarity among different software modules, one software module can be approximately represented by a small proportion of other modules. And the representation coefficients over the pre-defined dictionary, which consists of historical software module data, are generally sparse. We propose a cost-sensitive discriminative dictionary learning (CDDL) approach for software defect classification and prediction. The widely used datasets from NASA projects are employed as test data to evaluate the performance of all compared methods. Experimental results show that CDDL outperforms several representative state-of-the-art defect prediction methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rosasco L, Verri A, Santoro M, Mosci S, Villa S (2009) Iterative Projection Methods for Structured Sparsity Regularization.
Yang M, Zhang L, Yang J, Zhang D (2010) Metaface learning for sparse representation based face recognition. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, pp 1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2010.5652363
Jiang Y, Cukic B, Menzies T (2008) Cost Curve Evaluation of Fault Prediction Models. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2008.54
Elish KOEaMO (2008) Predicting defect-prone software modules using support vector machines. J Syst Softw 81(5):649–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2007.07.040
Wang J, Shen B, Chen Y (2012) Compressed C4.5 Models for Software Defect Prediction. In: Proceedings of the 2012 12th International Conference on Quality Software, pp 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/QSIC.2012.19
Wei-hua WTaL (2010) Naive Bayes Software Defect Prediction Model. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering
Sun Z, Song Q, Zhu X (2012) Using Coding-Based Ensemble Learning to Improve Software Defect Prediction. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 42(6):1806–1817. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2012.2226152
Zheng J (2010) Cost-sensitive boosting neural networks for software defect prediction. Expert Syst Appl 37(6):4537–4543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.056
Yambor WS, Draper BA, Beveridge, JR (2002) Analyzing PCA-based face recognition algorithms: Eigenvector selection and distance measures. Empirical Evaluation Methods in Computer Vision, pp 39–60. World Scientific
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32
Xu J-M, Fumera G, Roli F, Zhou Z-H, et al. (2009) Training SpamAssassin with active semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS’09), pp 1–8
Li M, Zhou Z-H (2007). Improve computer-aided diagnosis with machine learning techniques using undiagnosed samples. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 37(6): 1088–1098
Angluin D, Laird P (1988) Learning from noisy examples. Mach Learn 2: 343–370
Koru AG, Liu H (2005) Building effective defect-prediction models in practice. IEEE Softw 22(6): 23–29
Menzies T, Greenwald J, Frank A (2006) Data mining static code attributes to learn defect predictors. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1):2–13
Zhang H, Nelson A, Menzies T (2010) On the value of learning from defect dense components for software defect prediction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, pp 1–9.
Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Gall H, Giger E, Murphy B (2009) Cross-project defect prediction: a large scale experiment on data vs. domain vs. process. In: Proceedings of the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp 91–100
Kim S, Zimmermann T, Whitehead Jr EJ, Zeller A (2007) Predicting faults from cached history. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). IEEE, pp 489–498
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
**g, XY., Chen, H., Xu, B. (2023). Within-Project Defect Prediction. In: Intelligent Software Defect Prediction. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2842-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2842-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-2841-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-2842-2
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)