BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Martin Shepperd

Martin Shepperd contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Problem reports and team maturity in agile automotive software development

Background: Volvo Cars is pioneering an agile transformation on a large scale in the automotive industry. Social psychological aspects of automotive software development are an under-researched area in general. Few studies on team maturity or group dynamics can be found specifically in the automotive software engineering domain. Objective: This study is intended as an initial step to fill that gap by investigating the connection between issues and problem reports and team maturity. Method: We conducted a quantitative study with 84 participants from 14 teams and qualitatively validated the result with the Release Train Engineer having an overview of all the participating teams. Results: We find that the more mature a team is, the faster they seem to resolve issues as provided through external feedback, at least in the two initial team maturity stages. Conclusion: This study suggests that working on team dynamics might increase productivity in modern automotive software development departments, but this needs further investigation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation

Context: Software engineering has a problem in that when we empirically evaluate competing prediction systems we obtain conflicting results. Objective: To reduce the inconsistency amongst validation study results and provide a more formal foundation to interpret results with a particular focus on continuous prediction systems. Method: A new framework is proposed for evaluating competing prediction systems based upon (1) an unbiased statistic, Standardised Accuracy, (2) testing the result likelihood relative to the baseline technique of random 'predictions', that is guessing, and (3) calculation of effect sizes. Results: Previously published empirical evaluations of prediction systems are re-examined and the original conclusions shown to be unsafe. Additionally, even the strongest results are shown to have no more than a medium effect size relative to random guessing. Conclusions: Biased accuracy statistics such as MMRE are deprecated. By contrast this new empirical validation framework leads to meaningful results. Such steps will assist in performing future meta-analyses and in providing more robust and usable recommendations to practitioners.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Systematic Review of Unsupervised Learning Techniques for Software Defect Prediction

Background: Unsupervised machine learners have been increasingly applied to software defect prediction. It is an approach that may be valuable for software practitioners because it reduces the need for labeled training data. Objective: Investigate the use and performance of unsupervised learning techniques in software defect prediction. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review that identified 49 studies containing 2456 individual experimental results, which satisfied our inclusion criteria published between January 2000 and March 2018. In order to compare prediction performance across these studies in a consistent way, we (re-)computed the confusion matrices and employed the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) as our main performance measure. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that unsupervised models are comparable with supervised models for both within-project and cross-project prediction. Among the 14 families of unsupervised model, Fuzzy CMeans (FCM) and Fuzzy SOMs (FSOMs) perform best. In addition, where we were able to check, we found that almost 11% (262/2456) of published results (contained in 16 papers) were internally inconsistent and a further 33% (823/2456) provided insufficient details for us to check. Conclusion: Although many factors impact the performance of a classifier, e.g., dataset characteristics, broadly speaking, unsupervised classifiers do not seem to perform worse than the supervised classifiers in our review. However, we note a worrying prevalence of (i) demonstrably erroneous experimental results, (ii) undemanding benchmarks and (iii) incomplete reporting. We therefore encourage researchers to be comprehensive in their reporting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Assessing Software Defection Prediction Performance: Why Using the Matthews Correlation Coefficient Matters

Context: There is considerable diversity in the range and design of computational experiments to assess classifiers for software defect prediction. This is particularly so, regarding the choice of classifier performance metrics. Unfortunately some widely used metrics are known to be biased, in particular F1. Objective: We want to understand the extent to which the widespread use of the F1 renders empirical results in software defect prediction unreliable. Method: We searched for defect prediction studies that report both F1 and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). This enabled us to determine the proportion of results that are consistent between both metrics and the proportion that change. Results: Our systematic review identifies 8 studies comprising 4017 pairwise results. Of these results, the direction of the comparison changes in 23% of the cases when the unbiased MCC metric is employed. Conclusion: We find compelling reasons why the choice of classification performance metric matters, specifically the biased and misleading F1 metric should be deprecated.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access