[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluating ensemble imputation in software effort estimation

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate missing data (MD) imputation technique for a given software development effort estimation (SDEE) technique is not a trivial task. In fact, the impact of MD imputation on the estimation output depends on the dataset and the SDEE technique used, and there is no best imputation technique in all contexts. Thus, an attractive solution is to use more than one imputation technique and combine their results to obtain a final imputation outcome. This concept is called ensemble imputation and can significantly improve the effort estimation accuracy. This study proposes and constructs 11 heterogeneous ensemble imputation techniques, whose members are two, three, or four of the following single imputation techniques: K-nearest neighbors, expectation maximization, support vector regression (SVR) and decision trees (DTs). The effects of single/ensemble imputation techniques on SDEE performance were evaluated over six SDEE datasets: COCOMO81, ISBSG, Desharnais, China, Kemerer, and Miyazaki. Five SDEE performance measures were used: standardized accuracy (SA), predictor at 25% (Pred (0.25)), mean balanced relative error (MBRE), mean inverted balanced relative error (MIBRE), and logarithmic standard deviation (LSD). Moreover, we used: (1) the Skott-Knott (SK) statistical test to cluster and compare the results, and (2) the Borda count method to rank the SDEE techniques belonging to the best SK cluster.

The results showed that ensemble imputers significantly improved the performance of SDEE techniques compared to single imputation techniques. We also found that adding one or more imputers to the ensemble imputers generally led to a significant improvement in the SDEE performance. When the performance improvement is not significant, it is better to use the ensemble imputer with the minimum number of members because it is less complex. For ensemble imputers, the results suggest that no particular ensemble imputer gave the best results in all contexts. Overall, SVR imputation was the best imputation technique used to construct ensemble imputers for the SDEE. For the SDEE techniques, the best results were obtained by the DTs and SVR variants using ensemble imputation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibtissam Abnane.

Additional information

Communicated by: Sousuke Amasaki, Xin Xia, Shane McIntosh

Special Issue on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering (PROMISE) 2021.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 16 SA values of SDEE variants using single/ensemble imputers over the six datasets

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abnane, I., Idri, A., Chlioui, I. et al. Evaluating ensemble imputation in software effort estimation. Empir Software Eng 28, 56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10260-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10260-0

Keywords

Navigation