Cited by 84Software Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research

An empirical study of software reuse vs. defect-density and stability

Mohagheghi, P., Conradi, R., Killi, O.M., Schwarz, H.·2004·Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering

Abstract

The paper describes results of an empirical study, where some hypotheses about the impact of reuse on defect-density and stability, and about the impact of component size on defects and defect-density in the context of reuse are assessed, using historical data (data mining) on defects, modification rate, and software size of a large-scale telecom system developed by Ericsson. The analysis showed that reused components have lower defect-density than non-reused ones. Reused components have more defects with highest severity than the total distribution, but less defects after delivery, which shows that that these are given higher priority to fix. There are an increasing number of defects with component size for non-reused components, but not for reused components. Reused components were less modified (more stable) than non-reused ones between successive releases, even if reused components must incorporate evolving requirements from several application products. The study furthermore revealed inconsistencies and weaknesses in the existing defect reporting system, by analyzing data that was hardly treated systematically before.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icse.2004.1317450

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Previous research links reduced refactoring to higher defect rates.

    “Previous research links reduced refactoring to higher defect rates [54]”

    From Self-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software (2026) · cites this paper as [54]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mohagheghi, P., Conradi, R., Killi, O. M., & Schwarz, H.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Venue
Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering
Published
2004-09-28
Pages
282-291
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4244325127
Cited by
84
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Reliability and Analysis Research
Keywords
software reuse, defect density, software stability, component size, defect severity, defect reporting, software evolution

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