The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set
Open accessAbstract
ContextSoftware defect prediction plays a crucial role in estimating the most defect-prone components of software, and a large number of studies have pursued improving prediction accuracy within a project or across projects. However, the rules for making an appropriate decision between within- and cross-project defect prediction when available historical data are insufficient remain unclear. ObjectiveThe objective of this work is to validate the feasibility of the predictor built with a simplified metric set for software defect prediction in different scenarios, and to investigate practical guidelines for the choice of training data, classifier and metric subset of a given project. MethodFirst, based on six typical classifiers, three types of predictors using the size of software metric set were constructed in three scenarios. Then, we validated the acceptable performance of the predictor based on Top-k metrics in terms of statistical methods. Finally, we attempted to minimize the Top-k metric subset by removing redundant metrics, and we tested the stability of such a minimum metric subset with one-way ANOVA tests. ResultsThe study has been conducted on 34 releases of 10 open-source projects available at the PROMISE repository. The findings indicate that the predictors built with either Top-k metrics or the minimum metric subset can provide an acceptable result compared with benchmark predictors. The guideline for choosing a suitable simplified metric set in different scenarios is presented in Table 12. ConclusionThe experimental results indicate that (1) the choice of training data for defect prediction should depend on the specific requirement of accuracy; (2) the predictor built with a simplified metric set works well and is very useful in case limited resources are supplied; (3) simple classifiers (e.g., Naive Bayes) also tend to perform well when using a simplified metric set for defect prediction; and (4) in several cases, the minimum metric subset can be identified to facilitate the procedure of general defect prediction with acceptable loss of prediction precision in practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
An introduction to ROC analysis
Fawcett, T. (2006) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 · Cited by 21,879
Peng, H., Long, F., & Ding, C. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2005.159 · Cited by 10,544
(2006) · Springer eBooks · Cited by 8,123
An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier
Rish, I. (2001) · Cited by 3,202
Toward integrating feature selection algorithms for classification and clustering
Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.66 · Cited by 2,706
Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Maindonald, J. (2007) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v017.b05 · Cited by 1,349
Lessmann, S., Baesens, B., Mues, C., & Pietsch, S. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2008.35 · Cited by 1,226
Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors
Menzies, T., Greenwald, J., & Frank, A. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.256941 · Cited by 1,215
A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering
Hall, T., Beecham, S., Bowes, D., Gray, D., & Counsell, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.103 · Cited by 1,154
Metadata
- Authors
- He, P., Li, B., Liu, X., Chen, J., & Ma, Y.
- Venue
- Information and Software Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 59
- Pages
- 170-190
- ISSN
- 0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2099919734
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 46.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.11.006
- The paper
- He, P., Li, B., Liu, X., Chen, J., & Ma, Y. (2015). An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set. Information and Software Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.11.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.