Researcher profile

Zilin Xiang

Zilin Xiang contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

BiLO-CPDP: Bi-Level Programming for Automated Model Discovery in Cross-Project Defect Prediction

Cross-Project Defect Prediction (CPDP), which borrows data from similar projects by combining a transfer learner with a classifier, have emerged as a promising way to predict software defects when the available data about the target project is insufficient. How-ever, developing such a model is challenge because it is difficult to determine the right combination of transfer learner and classifier along with their optimal hyper-parameter settings. In this paper, we propose a tool, dubbedBiLO-CPDP, which is the first of its kind to formulate the automated CPDP model discovery from the perspective of bi-level programming. In particular, the bi-level programming proceeds the optimization with two nested levels in a hierarchical manner. Specifically, the upper-level optimization routine is designed to search for the right combination of transfer learner and classifier while the nested lower-level optimization routine aims to optimize the corresponding hyper-parameter settings.To evaluateBiLO-CPDP, we conduct experiments on 20 projects to compare it with a total of 21 existing CPDP techniques, along with its single-level optimization variant and Auto-Sklearn, a state-of-the-art automated machine learning tool. Empirical results show that BiLO-CPDP champions better prediction performance than all other 21 existing CPDP techniques on 70% of the projects, while be-ing overwhelmingly superior to Auto-Sklearn and its single-level optimization variant on all cases. Furthermore, the unique bi-level formalization inBiLO-CPDP also permits to allocate more budget to the upper-level, which significantly boosts the performance.

preprint2020arXiv

Understanding the Automated Parameter Optimization on Transfer Learning for CPDP: An Empirical Study

Data-driven defect prediction has become increasingly important in software engineering process. Since it is not uncommon that data from a software project is insufficient for training a reliable defect prediction model, transfer learning that borrows data/knowledge from other projects to facilitate the model building at the current project, namely cross-project defect prediction (CPDP), is naturally plausible. Most CPDP techniques involve two major steps, i.e., transfer learning and classification, each of which has at least one parameter to be tuned to achieve their optimal performance. This practice fits well with the purpose of automated parameter optimization. However, there is a lack of thorough understanding about what are the impacts of automated parameter optimization on various CPDP techniques. In this paper, we present the first empirical study that looks into such impacts on 62 CPDP techniques, 13 of which are chosen from the existing CPDP literature while the other 49 ones have not been explored before. We build defect prediction models over 20 real-world software projects that are of different scales and characteristics. Our findings demonstrate that: (1) Automated parameter optimization substantially improves the defect prediction performance of 77\% CPDP techniques with a manageable computational cost. Thus more efforts on this aspect are required in future CPDP studies. (2) Transfer learning is of ultimate importance in CPDP. Given a tight computational budget, it is more cost-effective to focus on optimizing the parameter configuration of transfer learning algorithms (3) The research on CPDP is far from mature where it is "not difficult" to find a better alternative by making a combination of existing transfer learning and classification techniques. This finding provides important insights about the future design of CPDP techniques.