An empirical study of software reuse vs. defect-density and stability
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Quality, productivity and economic benefits of software reuse: a review of industrial studies
Mohagheghi, P., & Conradi, R. (2007) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-007-9040-x · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Self-citationSelf-Admitted GenAI Usage in Open-Source Software
Xiao, T., Fan, Y., Calefato, F., Treude, C., Kula, R. G., Hata, H., & Baltes, S. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2026.3681886 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mohagheghi, P., Conradi, R., Killi, O. M., & Schwarz, H.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- ORCID
- Mohagheghi, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- 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