Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Software Defect Prediction on Unlabelled Datasets: A Comparative Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020 (ICCSA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12250))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1590 Accesses

Abstract

Background: Defect prediction on unlabelled datasets is a challenging and widespread problem in software engineering. Machine learning is of great value in this context because it provides techniques - called unsupervised - that are applicable to unlabelled datasets. Objective: This study aims at comparing various approaches employed over the years on unlabelled datasets to predict the defective modules, i.e. the ones which need more attention in the testing phase. Our comparison is based on the measurement of performance metrics and on the real defective information derived from software archives. Our work leverages a new dataset that has been obtained by extracting and preprocessing its metrics from a C++ software. Method: Our empirical study has taken advantage of CLAMI with its improvement CLAMI+ that we have applied on high energy physics software datasets. Furthermore, we have used clustering techniques such as the K-means algorithm to find potentially critical modules. Results: Our experimental analysis have been carried out on 1 open source project with 34 software releases. We have applied 17 ML techniques to the labelled datasets obtained by following the CLAMI and CLAMI+ approaches. The two approaches have been evaluated by using different performance metrics, our results show that CLAMI+ performs better than CLAMI. The predictive average accuracy metric is around 95% for 4 ML techniques (4 out of 17) that show a Kappa statistic greater than 0.80. We applied K-means on the same dataset and obtained 2 clusters labelled according to the output of CLAMI and CLAMI+. Conclusion: Based on the results of the different statistical tests, we conclude that no significant performance differences have been found in the selected classification techniques.

Supported by organization INFN.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arar, O.F., Ayan, K.: Software defect prediction using cost-sensitive neural network. Appl. Softw. Comput. 33, 263–277 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Menzies, T., Greenwald, J., Frank, A.: Data mining static code attributes to learn defect predictors. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 2–13 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ronchieri, E., Canaparo, M.: Metrics for software reliability: a systematic mapping study. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 22, 5–25 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Malhotra, R., Bansal, A.J.: Cross project change prediction using open source projects. In: International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI). IEEE (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2014.6968347

  5. Zhong, S., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Seliya, N.: Unsupervised learning for expert-based software quality estimation. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering. IEEE (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/HASE.2004.1281739

  6. Yang, J., Qian, H.: Defect prediction on unlabeled datasets by using unsupervised clustering. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 14th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 2nd International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li, N., Shepperd, M.J., Guo, Y.: A systematic review of unsupervised learning techniques for software defect prediction. Inf. Softw. Technol. 122, 106287 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Catal, C., Sevim, U., Diri, B.: Clustering and metrics thresholds based software fault prediction of unlabeled program modules. In: 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, pp. 199–204 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhong, S., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Seliya, N.: Analyzing software measurement data with clustering techniques. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19(2), 20–27 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2004.1274907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bishnu, P.S., Bhattacherjee, V.: Software fault prediction using quad tree-based k-means clustering algorithm. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2011.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aleem, S., Capretz, L.F., Ahmed, F.: Benchmarking machine learning techniques for software defect detection. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 6(3) (2015). https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsea.2015.6302

  12. Alsawalqah, H., Hijazi, N., Eshtay, M., et al.: Software defect prediction using heterogeneous ensemble classification based on segmented patterns. Appl. Sci. 10(1745) (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051745

  13. Yang, B., Zheng, X., Guo, P.: Software metrics data clustering for quality prediction. In: Huang, D.-S., Li, K., Irwin, G.W. (eds.) ICIC 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4114, pp. 959–964. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37275-2_121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Abaei, G., Selamat, A.: Increasing the accuracy of software fault prediction using majority ranking fuzzy clustering. In: Lee, R. (ed.) Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing. SCI, vol. 569, pp. 179–193. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10389-1_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang, F., Zheng, Q., Zou, Y., Hassan, A.E.: Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 309–320 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884839

  16. Chang, R., Shen, X., Wang, B., Xu, Q.: A novel method for software defect prediction in the context of big data. In: 2017 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Big Data Analysis (ICBDA), pp. 100–104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDA.2017.8078785

  17. Yan, M., Yang, M., Liu, C., Zhang, X.: Self-learning change-prone class prediction. In: The 28th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE 2016, Redwood City, San Francisco Bay, USA, 1–3 July 2016, pp. 134–140 (2016). https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2016-039

  18. Park, M., Hong, E.: Software fault prediction model using clustering algorithms determining the number of clusters automatically. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 8, 199–204 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Herbold, S., Trautsch, A., Grabowski, J.: A comparative study to benchmark cross-project defect prediction approaches. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 44(9), 811–833 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shepperd, M., Song, Q., Sun, Z., Mair, C.: Data quality: some comments on the NASA software defect datasets. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(9), 1208–1215 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2013.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peters, F., Menzies, T., Gong, L., Zhang, H.: Balancing privacy and utility in cross-company defect prediction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(8), 1054–1068 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2013.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nam, J., Kim, S.: CLAMI: defect prediction on unlabeled datasets (T). In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2015.56

  23. Yan, M., Zhang, X., Liu, C., et al.: Automated change-prone class prediction on unlabeled dataset using unsupervised method. Inf. Softw. Technol. 92, 1–16 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghotra, B., McIntosh, S., Hassan, A.E.: Revisiting the impact of classification techniques on the performance of defect prediction models. In: IEEE/ACM 37th International Conference of Software Engineering (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.91

  25. Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., et al.: GEANT4 - a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 506(3), 250–303 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ronchieri, E., Pia, M.G.: Assessing software quality in high energy and nuclear physics: the geant4 and root case studies and beyond. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Sydney, Australia, Australia (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Imagix: Reverse Engineering Tools - C, C++, Java - Imagix. https://www.imagix.com/

  28. Preston-Werner, T.: Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 (2013). https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html

  29. Fenton, N.E., Neil, M.: A critique of software defect prediction models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(5), 675–689 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McCabe, T.: A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE 2(4), 308–320 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: Metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang, H., Zhang, X.: Comments on data mining static code attributes to learn defect prediction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(9), 635–636 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yucalar, F., Ozcift, A., Borandag, E., Kilinc, D.: Multiple-classifiers in software quality engineering: combining predictors to improve software fault prediction ability. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yan, M., Xia, X., Shihab, E., et al.: Automating change-level self-admitted technical debt determination. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45(12), 1211–1229 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2018.2831232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Garcìa, S., Fernandez, A., Luego, J., Herrera, F.: Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: experimental analysis of power. Inf. Sci. 180, 2044–2064 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Friedman, M.: A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of M rankings. Annal. Math. Stat. 11(1), 86–92 (1940). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2235971

  39. Iman, R.L., Davenport, J.M.: Approximations of the critical region of the friedman statistic. Commun. Stat. 9, 571–595 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Calvo, B., Santafé, G.: scmamp: statistical comparison of multiple algorithms in multiple problems. R J. 8(1), 248–256 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bergmann, B., Hommel, G.: Improvements of general multiple test procedures for redundant systems of hypotheses. Mult. Hypotheses Test. 70, 100–115 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Tantithamthavorn, C., McIntosh, S., Hassan, A.E., Matsumoto, K.: An empirical comparison of model validation techniques for defect prediction models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43(1), 1–18 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2016.2584050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Azeem, N., Usmani, S.: Analysis of data mining based software defect prediction techniques. Glob. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 11 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang, J., Ma, Y., Zhang, L., Gao, R., Wu, D.: Deep learning for smart manufacturing: methods and applications. J. Manuf. Syst. 48, 144–156 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sculley, D.: Web-scale K-means clustering. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2010, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1177–1178. ACM (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772862

  47. Lloyd, S.: Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 28(2), 129–137 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Elkan, C.: Using the triangle inequality to accelerate k-means. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2003, pp. 147–153. AAAI Press (2003), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3041838.3041857

  49. Kaur, D., Kaur, A., Gulati, S., Aggarwal, M.: A clustering algorithm for software fault prediction. In: International Conference on Computer and Communication Technology (ICCCT) (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCT.2010.5640474

  50. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer, Cham (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Usama, M., Qadir, J., Raza, A., et al.: Unsupervised machine learning for networking: techniques. applications and research challenges. IEEE Access 7, 65579–65615 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916648

  52. Domingos, P.: A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 55(10), 78–87 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736.2347755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Srivastava, N., Krizhevsky, G.H.A., Sutskever, I., Salakhutdinov, R.: Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15(1), 1929–1958 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Fukushima, T., Kamei, Y., McIntosh, S., Yamashita, K., Ubayashi, N.: An empirical study of just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, New York, NY, USA, pp. 172–181. ACM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597075

  55. Jing, X.Y., Ying, S., Zhang, Z.W., Wu, S.S., Liu, J.: Dictionary learning based software defect prediction. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 414–423 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568320

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Imagix Corporation for providing an extended free license of Imagix 4D to perform this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INFN-CNAF, Viale Berti Pichat 6/2, Bologna, Italy

    Elisabetta Ronchieri & Marco Canaparo

  2. Elettrical and Computer Engineering Department, Northeastern University, Boston, USA

    Mauro Belgiovine

Authors
  1. Elisabetta Ronchieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Canaparo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Belgiovine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabetta Ronchieri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Osvaldo Gervasi

  2. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Potenza, Italy

    Beniamino Murgante

  3. Chair- Center of ICT/ICE, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

  4. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Chiara Garau

  5. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Ivan Blečić

  6. Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    David Taniar

  7. Department of Information Science, Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Bernady O. Apduhan

  8. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Ana Maria A.C. Rocha

  9. Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Eufemia Tarantino

  10. Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Carmelo Maria Torre

  11. Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Yeliz Karaca

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ronchieri, E., Canaparo, M., Belgiovine, M. (2020). Software Defect Prediction on Unlabelled Datasets: A Comparative Study. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2020. ICCSA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12250. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58802-1_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58802-1_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58801-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58802-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics