Cited by 620Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Reliability and Analysis ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

A systematic review of machine learning techniques for software fault prediction

Malhotra, Ruchika·2015·Applied Soft Computing

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.023

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malhotra, R.
Affiliations
Delhi Technological University (IN)
Corresponding author
Malhotra, Ruchika
Venue
Applied Soft Computing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
27
Pages
504-518
ISSN
1568-4946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026750231
Cited by
620
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 8
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Soft Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Reliability and Analysis Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
software defect prediction, machine learning methods, software quality prediction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review