ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prediction systems in software engineering often suffer from the shortage of suitable data within a project. A promising solution is transfer learning that utilizes data from outside the project. Many transfer learning approaches have been proposed for defect prediction known as cross-project defect prediction (CPDP). In contrast, a few approaches have been proposed for software effort estimation known as cross-company software effort estimation (CCSEE). Both CCSEE and CPDP are engaged in a similar problem, and a few CPDP approaches are applicable as CCSEE in actual. It is thus beneficial for improving CCSEE performance to examine how well CPDP approaches can perform as CCSEE approaches. AIMS: To explore how well CPDP approaches work as CCSEE approaches. METHOD: An empirical experiment was conducted for evaluating the performance of CPDP approaches in CCSEE. We examined 7 CPDP approaches which were selected due to the easiness of application. Those approaches were applied to 8 data sets, each of which consists of a few subsets from different domains. The estimation results were evaluated with a common performance measure called SA. RESULTS: there were several CPDP approaches which could improve the estimation accuracy though the degree of improvement was not large. CONCLUSIONS: A straight forward application of selected CPDP approaches did not bring a clear effect. CCSEE may need specific transfer learning approaches for more improvement.
- Sousuke Amasaki, Kazuya Kawata, and Tomoyuki Yokogawa. 2015. Improving Cross-Project Defect Prediction Methods with Data Simplification. In Proc. of SEAA '15. IEEE, 96--103. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Camargo-Cruz Ana Erika and Koichiro Ochimizu. 2009. Towards logistic regression models for predicting fault-prone code across software projects. In Proc. of ESEM '09. IEEE, 460--463. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steffen Herbold. 2016. CrossPare: A tool for benchmarking cross-project defect predictions. In Proc. of 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering Workshops (ASEW). IEEE, 90--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steffen Herbold, Alexander Trautsch, and Jens Grabowski. 2018. A Comparative Study to Benchmark Cross-Project Defect Prediction Approaches. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 44, 9 (2018), 811--833.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kazuya Kawata, Sousuke Amasaki, and Tomoyuki Yokogawa. 2015. Improving relevancy filter methods for cross-project defect prediction. In Proc. of ACIT-CSI '15. 2--7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara A. Kitchenham, Emilia Mendes, and Guilherme Horta Travassos. 2007. Cross versus Within-Company Cost Estimation Studies: A Systematic Review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33, 5 (2007), 316--329. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ekrem Kocaguneli, Bojan Cukic, Tim Menzies, and Huihua Lu. 2013. Building a second opinion: learning cross-company data. In Proc. of PROMISE. ACM, 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ekrem Kocaguneli and Tim Menzies. 2011. How to Find Relevant Data for Effort Estimation?. In Proc. of International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, 255--264. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ekrem Kocaguneli, Tim Menzies, and Emilia Mendes. 2015. Transfer learning in effort estimation. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 3 (2015), 813--843. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ying Ma, Guangchun Luo, Xue Zeng, and Aiguo Chen. 2012. Transfer learning for cross-company software defect prediction. Information and Software Technology 54, 3 (2012), 248--256. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emilia Mendes and Chris Lokan. 2009. Investigating the use of chronological splitting to compare software cross-company and single-company effort predictions: a replicated study. In Proc. of EASE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tim Menzies, A. Butcher, A. Marcus, Thomas Zimmermann, and D. Cok. 2011. Local versus global models for effort estimation and defect prediction. In Proc. of ASE '11. IEEE, 343--351. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leandro L. Minku. 2016. On the Terms Within- and Cross-Company in Software Effort Estimation. In Proc. of PROMISE. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leandro L. Minku. 2019. A novel online supervised hyperparameter tuning procedure applied to cross-company software effort estimation. Empirical Software Engineering (2019), 1--52.Google Scholar
- Leandro L. Minku and Siqing Hou. 2017. Clustering Dycom. In Proc. of PROMISE. 12--21.Google Scholar
- Leandro L Minku and Xin Yao. 2012. Can Cross-company Data Improve Performance in Software Effort Estimation?. In Proc. of PROMISE. 69--78. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leandro L Minku and Xin Yao. 2014. How to make best use of cross-company data in software effort estimation?. In Proc. of ICSE. 446--456. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leandro L Minku and Xin Yao. 2017. Which models of the past are relevant to the present? A software effort estimation approach to exploiting useful past models. Automated Software Engineering 24, 3 (2017), 499--542. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin J Shepperd and Steve MacDonell. 2012. Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation. Information and Software Technology 54, 8 (2012), 820--827. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shensi Tong, Qing He, Yuting Chen, Ye Yang, and Beijun Shen. 2016. Heterogeneous Cross-Company Effort Estimation through Transfer Learning. In Proc. of Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, 169--176.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burak Turhan and Emilia Mendes. 2014. A Comparison of Cross-Versus Single-Company Effort Prediction Models for Web Projects. In Proc. of SEAA. IEEE, 285--292. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burak Turhan, Tim Menzies, Ayşe B Bener, and Justin Di Stefano. 2009. On the relative value of cross-company and within-company data for defect prediction. Empirical Software Engineering 14, 5 (2009), 540--578. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shinya Watanabe, Haruhiko Kaiya, and Kenji Kaijiri. 2008. Adapting a fault prediction model to allow inter languagereuse. In Proc. of PROMISE '08. ACM, New York, New York, USA, 19--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Applying Cross Project Defect Prediction Approaches to Cross-Company Effort Estimation
Recommendations
An exploratory study on applicability of cross project defect prediction approaches to cross-company effort estimation
PROMISE 2020: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software EngineeringBACKGROUND: Research on software effort estimation has been active for decades, especially in developing effort estimation models. Effort estimation models need a dataset collected from completed projects similar to a project to be estimated. The ...
Towards Better Effort Estimation with Cross-Project Defect Prediction Approaches
EASE '19: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software EngineeringThis research aims to tackle a data shift problem of software effort estimation. Cross project defect prediction approaches were found to be helpful for the same problem of software defect prediction. We examined the CPDP approaches and explored its ...
Cross-Version Defect Prediction using Cross-Project Defect Prediction Approaches: Does it work?
PROMISE'18: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software EngineeringBackground: Specifying and removing defects before release deserve extra cost for the success of software projects. Long-running projects experience multiple releases, and it is a natural choice to adopt cross-version defect prediction (CVDP) that uses ...
Comments