The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation
Open accessAbstract
The need for accurate software prediction systems increases as software becomes much larger and more complex. We believe that the underlying characteristics: size, number of features, type of distribution, etc., of the data set influence the choice of the prediction system to be used. For this reason, we would like to control the characteristics of such data sets in order to systematically explore the relationship between accuracy, choice of prediction system, and data set characteristic. It would also be useful to have a large validation data set. Our solution is to simulate data allowing both control and the possibility of large (1000) validation cases. The authors compare four prediction techniques: regression, rule induction, nearest neighbor (a form of case-based reasoning), and neural nets. The results suggest that there are significant differences depending upon the characteristics of the data set. Consequently, researchers should consider prediction context when evaluating competing prediction systems. We observed that the more "messy" the data and the more complex the relationship with the dependent variable, the more variability in the results. In the more complex cases, we observed significantly different results depending upon the particular training set that has been sampled from the underlying data set. However, our most important result is that it is more fruitful to ask which is the best prediction system in a particular context rather than which is the "best" prediction system.
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
A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation
Efron, B., & Gong, G. (1983) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1983.10483087 · Cited by 3,229
Cited by
An Empirical Comparison of Model Validation Techniques for Defect Prediction Models
Tantithamthavorn, C., McIntosh, S., Hassan, A. E., & Matsumoto, K. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2584050 · Cited by 574
Systematic literature review of machine learning based software development effort estimation models
Wen, J., Li, S., Lin, Z., Hu, Y., & Huang, C. (2012) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.09.002 · Cited by 526
An empirical analysis of data preprocessing for machine learning-based software cost estimation
Huang, J., Li, Y.-F., & Xie, M. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.004 · Cited by 223
Wahono (2007) · doi:10.3923/jse.2007.1.12 · Cited by 113
Effect sizes and their variance for AB/BA crossover design studies
Madeyski, L., & Kitchenham, B. (2018) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-017-9574-5 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Shepperd, M., & Kadoda, G.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1014-1022
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159747233
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.69
- 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: Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/32.965341
- The paper
- Shepperd, M., & Kadoda, G. (2001). Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.965341
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.