Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Software Defect Prediction Using Ensemble Learning: A Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Matloob, Faseeha, Ghazal, Taher M., Taleb, Nasser, Aftab, Shabib, Ahmad, Munir, Khan, Muhammad Adnan, Abbas, Sagheer, Soomro, Tariq Rahim·2021·IEEE Access

Abstract

Recent advances in the domain of software defect prediction (SDP) include the integration of multiple classification techniques to create an ensemble or hybrid approach. This technique was introduced to improve the prediction performance by overcoming the limitations of any single classification technique. This research provides a systematic literature review on the use of the ensemble learning approach for software defect prediction. The review is conducted after critically analyzing research papers published since 2012 in four well-known online libraries: ACM, IEEE, Springer Link, and Science Direct. In this study, five research questions covering the different aspects of research progress on the use of ensemble learning for software defect prediction are addressed. To extract the answers to identified questions, 46 most relevant papers are shortlisted after a thorough systematic research process. This study will provide compact information regarding the latest trends and advances in ensemble learning for software defect prediction and provide a baseline for future innovations and further reviews. Through our study, we discovered that frequently employed ensemble methods by researchers are the random forest, boosting, and bagging. Less frequently employed methods include stacking, voting and Extra Trees. Researchers proposed many promising frameworks, such as EMKCA, SMOTE-Ensemble, MKEL, SDAEsTSE, TLEL, and LRCR, using ensemble learning methods. The AUC, accuracy, F-measure, Recall, Precision, and MCC were mostly utilized to measure the prediction performance of models. WEKA was widely adopted as a platform for machine learning. Many researchers showed through empirical analysis that features selection, and data sampling was necessary pre-processing steps that improve the performance of ensemble classifiers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2021.3095559

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 54 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Matloob, F., Ghazal, T. M., Taleb, N., Aftab, S., Ahmad, M., Khan, M. A., Abbas, S., & Soomro, T. R.
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
98754-98771
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182306886
Cited by
293
References
54
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Software Defect Prediction Using Ensemble Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/access.2021.3095559
The paper
Matloob, F., Ghazal, T. M., Taleb, N., Aftab, S., Ahmad, M., Khan, M. A., Abbas, S., & Soomro, T. R. (2021). Software Defect Prediction Using Ensemble Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3095559

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.