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

Predicting high-risk program modules by selecting the right software measurements

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A timely detection of high-risk program modules in high-assurance software is critical for avoiding the high consequences of operational failures. While software risk can initiate from external sources, such as management or outsourcing, software quality is adversely affected when internal software risks are realized, such as improper practice of standard software processes or lack of a defined software quality infrastructure. Practitioners employ various techniques to identify and rectify high-risk or low-quality program modules. Effectiveness of detecting such modules is affected by the software measurements used, making feature selection an important step during software quality prediction. We use a wrapper-based feature ranking technique to select the optimal set of software metrics to build defect prediction models. We also address the adverse effects of class imbalance (very few low-quality modules compared to high-quality modules), a practical problem observed in high-assurance systems. Applying a data sampling technique followed by feature selection is a relatively unique contribution of our work. We present a comprehensive investigation on the impact of data sampling followed by attribute selection on the defect predictors built with imbalanced data. The case study data are obtained from several real-world high-assurance software projects. The key results are that attribute selection is more efficient when applied after data sampling, and defect prediction performance generally improves after applying data sampling and feature selection.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Positive and negative refer to fault-prone and not-fault-prone modules respectively.

References

  • Aha, D. W. (1997). Lazy learning. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aha, D. W., Kibler, D., & Albert, M. K. (1991). Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 6(1), 1573–0565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbel, R., & Rokach, L. (2006). Classifier evaluation under limited resources. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(14), 1619–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barandela, R., Valdovinos, R. M., Sánchez, S. J., & Ferri, F. J. (2004). The imbalanced training sample problem: Under or over sampling?. In Joint IAPR international workshops on structural, syntactic, and statistical pattern recognition (SSPR/SPR’04). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3138, pp. 806–814).

  • Chawla, N. V. (2003). C4.5 and imbalanced data sets: Investigating the effect of sampling method, probabilistic estimate, and decision tree structure. In Proceedings of the twentieth international conference on machine learning: Workshop on learning from imbalanced datasets II. Washington, DC.

  • Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, P. W. (2002) Smote: Synthetic minority oversampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321–357.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cieslak, D. A., Chawla, N. V., & Striegel, A. (2006). Combating imbalance in network intrusion datasets. In Proceedings of 2006 IEEE international conference on granular computing (pp. 732–737). Athens, Georgia.

  • Davis, J., & Goadrich, M. (2006). The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning (pp. 233–240). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

  • Domingos, P., & Pazzani, M. (1997). On the optimality of the simple bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning, 29(2–3): 103–130.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Doraisamy, S., Golzari, S., Norowi, N. M., Sulaiman, N., & Udzir, N. I. (2008). A study on feature selection and classification techniques for automatic genre classification of traditional malay music. In Ninth international conference on music information retrieval, pp. 331–336. Philadelphia, PA.

  • Drummond, C., & Holte, R. C. (2003). C4.5, class imbalance, and cost sensitivity: why under-sampling beats over-sampling. In Workshop on learning from imbalanced data sets II, international conference on machine learning.

  • Elkan, C. (2001). The foundations of cost-sensitive learning. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on machine learning (pp. 239–246).

  • Engen, V., Vincent, J., & Phalp, K. (2008). Enhancing network based intrusion detection for imbalanced data. International Journal of Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Engineering Systems, 12(5–6), 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estabrooks, A., Jo, T., & Japkowicz, N. (2004). A multiple resampling method for learning from imbalanced data sets. International Journal of Computational Intelligence, 20(1), 18–36.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N. E., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997) Software metrics: A rigorous and practical approach, (2nd ed.). PWS Publishing Company: ITP, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, G. (2003). An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1289–1305.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, R., Seok-Won, L. (2007) Visual analytics for requirements-driven risk assessment. In Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on requirements engineering visualization (pp. 6–6). New Delhi, India. ISBN: 978-0-7695-3248-6.

  • Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1157–1182.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. A., & Holmes, G. (2003). Benchmarking attribute selection techniques for discrete class data mining. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 15(6), 1437–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haykin S. (1998) Neural Networks: A comprehensive foundation, (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

  • Hudepohl, J. P., Aud, S. J., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Allen, E. B., & Mayrand, J. (1996). Emerald: Software metrics and models on the desktop. IEEE Software 13(5), 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilczuk, G., Mlynarski, R., Kargul, W., & Wakulicz-Deja, A. (2007). New feature selection methods for qualification of the patients for cardiac pacemaker implantation. In Computers in Cardiology (pp. 423–426). Durham, NC.

  • Imam, K. E., Benlarbi, S., Goel, N., Rai, S. N. (2001). Comparing case-based reasoning classifiers for predicting high-risk software componenets. Journal of Systems and Software, 55(3), 301–320. (Elsevier Science Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansma, P. (2005). When management gets serious about managing software. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE aerospace conference (pp. 4366–4382). Big Sky, MT (2005). Software Quality Improvement Project, Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, CA.

  • John, G. H., & Langley, P. (1995). Estimating continuous distributions in bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of eleventh conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 338–345). San Mateo.

  • Jong, K., Marchiori, E., Sebag, M., & van der Vaart, A. (2004). Feature selection in proteomic pattern data with support vector machines. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in bioinformatics and computational Biology.

  • Kamal, A. H., Zhu, X., Pandya, A. S., Hsu, S., & Shoaib, M. (2009). The impact of gene selection on imbalanced microarray expression data. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on bioinformatics and computational biology. Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics (Vol. 5462, pp. 259–269). New Orleans, LA.

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Bullard, L. A., & Gao, K. (2009). Attribute selection using rough sets in software quality classification. International Journal of Reliability Quality and Safty Engineering, 16(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Golawala, M., Van Hulse, J. (2007). An empirical study of learning from imbalanced data using random forest. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 310–317). IEEE Computer Society, Patras.

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seiffert, C., Van Hulse, J., Napolitano, A., & Folleco, A. (2007). Learning with limited minority class data. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on machine learning and applications (pp. 348–353). IEEE Computer Society, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Seliya, N. (2004) Comparitive assessment of software quality classification technique. 9Empirical Sofware Engineering Journal(3), 229–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seliya, N., & Gao, K. (2005) Detecting noisy instances with the rule-based classification model. Intelligent Data Analysis, 9(4), 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotsiantis, S., Kanellopoulos, D., & Pintelas, P. (2006) Handling imbalanced datasets: A review. GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, 30(1).

  • Le Cessie, S., & Van Houwelingen, J. C. (1992). Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Applied Statistics, 41(1), 191–201.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lessmann, S., Baesens, B., Mues, C., & Pietsch, S. (2008). Benchmarking classification models for software defect prediction: A proposed framework and novel findings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(4), 485–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., Motoda, H., & Yu, L. (2004). A selective sampling approach to active feature selection. Artificial Intelligence, 159(1–2), 49–74.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2005). Toward integrating feature selection algorithms for classification and clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(4), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Y., & Cukic, B. (2007) Adequate and precise evaluation of quality models in software engineering studies. In Proceedings of the third International workshop on predictor models in software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.

  • Ping, Y., Systa, T., & Muller, H. (2002). Predicting fault-proneness using OO metrics: An industrial case study. In T. Gyimothy, F. B. Abreu (Eds.) Proceedings of 6th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering, (pp. 99–107). Budapest, Hungary.

  • Platt, J.C. (1999). Advances in kernel methods—support vector learning. In Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal optimization (pp. 185–208). MIT Press.

  • Rodriguez, D., Ruiz, R., Cuadrado-Gallego, J., & Aguilar-Ruiz, J. (2007). Detecting fault modules applying feature selection to classifiers. In Proceedings of 8th IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (pp. 667–672). Las Vegas, Nevada.

  • Runeson, P., Ohlsson, M. C., & Wohlin, C. (2001). A classification scheme for studies on fault-prone components. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2188, 341–355. (Springer Link).

  • Saeys, Y., Abeel, T., & Peer, Y. (2008). Robust feature selection using ensemble feature selection techniques. In Proceedings of the European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases—Part II (pp. 313–325).

  • Seiffert, C., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Van Hulse, J. (2009) Hybrid sampling for imbalanced data. International Journal of Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 16(3), 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiffert, C., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Van Hulse, J., & Napolitano, A. (2010). Rusboost: A hybrid approach to alleviate class imbalance. IEEE transactions on systems, man and cybernetics: Part A: Systems and Humans, 40(1), 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawe-Taylor, J., & Cristianini, N. (2000). Support Vector Machines, (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolova, M., Japkowicz, N., & Szpakowicz, S. (2006). Beyond accuracy, f-score and ROC: A family of discriminant measures for performance evaluation. In Proceedings of the Australian conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1015–1021).

  • Van Hulse, J., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2009). Knowledge discovery from imbalanced and noisy data. Data and Knowledge Engineering , 68(12), 1513–1542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hulse, J., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Napolitano, A. (2007). Experimental perspectives on learning from imbalanced data. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on machine learning, ICML 2007 (pp. 935–942). Corvallis, OR.

  • Votta, L. G., & Porter, A. A. (1995). Experimental software engineering: A report on the state of the art. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on software engineering (pp. 277–279). IEEE Computer Society, Seattle, WA.

  • Wilson, D. (1972). Asymptotic properties of nearest neighbor rules using edited data sets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2, 408C421.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques, (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslen, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Kluwer International series in software engineering. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X. M., Li, X., Chen, L., & Aihara, K. (2007). Protein classification with imbalanced data. Proteins: Structure, function, and bioinformatics 70(4): 1125–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eastern Connecticut State University, 83 Windham Street, Willimantic, CT, 06226, USA

    Kehan Gao

  2. Florida Atlantic University, 777 W. Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

    Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar

  3. University of Michigan—Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn, MI, 48128, USA

    Naeem Seliya

Authors
  1. Kehan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naeem Seliya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kehan Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, K., Khoshgoftaar, T.M. & Seliya, N. Predicting high-risk program modules by selecting the right software measurements. Software Qual J 20, 3–42 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9132-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9132-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation