Paper detail

Iterative versus Exhaustive Data Selection for Cross Project Defect Prediction: An Extended Replication Study

Context: The effectiveness of data selection approaches in improving the performance of cross project defect prediction(CPDP) has been shown in multiple previous studies. Beside that, replication studies play an important role in the support of any valid study. Repeating a study using the same or different subjects can lead to better understandings of the nature of the problem. Objective: We use an iterative dataset selection (IDS) approach to generate training datasets and evaluate them on a set of randomly created validation datasets in the context of CPDP while considering a higher range of flexibility which makes the approach more feasible in practice. Method: We replicate an earlier study and present some insights into the achieved results while pointing out some of the shortcomings of the original study. Using the lessons learned, we propose to use an alternative training/validation dataset generation approaches which not only is more feasible in practice, but also achieves slightly better performances. We compare the results of our experiments to those from scenarios A, B, C and D from the original study. Results:Our experiments reveal that IDS is heavily recall based. The average recall performance for all test sets is 0.933 which is significantly higher than that from the replicated method. This in turn comes with a loss in precision. IDS has the lowest precision among the compared scenarios that use Decision Table learner. IDS however, achieves comparable or better F-measure performances. IDS achieves higher mean, median and min F-measure values while being more stable generally, in comparison with the replicated method. Conclusions: We conclude that datasets obtained from iterative/search-based approaches is a promising way to tackle CPDP. Especially, the performance increase in terms of both time and performance encourages further investigation of our approach.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.