The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data
Abstract
Many defect prediction techniques are proposed to improve software reliability. Change classification predicts defects at the change level, where a change is the modifications to one file in a commit. In this paper, we conduct the first study of applying change classification in practice. We identify two issues in the prediction process, both of which contribute to the low prediction performance. First, the data are imbalanced -- there are much fewer buggy changes than clean changes. Second, the commonly used cross-validation approach is inappropriate for evaluating the performance of change classification. To address these challenges, we apply and adapt online change classification, resampling, and updatable classification techniques to improve the classification performance. We perform the improved change classification techniques on one proprietary and six open source projects. Our results show that these techniques improve the precision of change classification by 12.2-89.5% or 6.4 -- 34.8 percentage points (pp.) on the seven projects. In addition, we integrate change classification in the development process of the proprietary project. We have learned the following lessons: 1) new solutions are needed to convince developers to use and believe prediction results, and prediction results need to be actionable, 2) new and improved classification algorithms are needed to explain the prediction results, and insensible and unactionable explanations need to be filtered or refined, and 3) new techniques are needed to improve the relatively low precision.
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
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
The WEKA data mining software: an update
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., & Witten, I. H. (2009) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1656274.1656278 · Cited by 17,750
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
Software Defect Prediction via Convolutional Neural Network
Li, J., He, P., Zhu, J., & Lyu, M. R. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS) · doi:10.1109/qrs.2017.42 · Cited by 462
Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction
Wang, S., Liu, T., Nam, J., & Tan, L. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2877612 · Cited by 320
Self-citationProgress on approaches to software defect prediction
Li, Z., Jing, X.-Y., & Zhu, X. (2018) · IET Software · doi:10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0148 · Cited by 264
Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repair
Jiang, N., Liu, K., Lutellier, T., & Tan, L. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00125 · Cited by 202
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tan, M., Tan, L., Dara, S., & Mayeux, C.
- Venue
- 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2015-05
- Pages
- 99-108
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4236586490
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.74
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icse.2015.139
- The paper
- Tan, M., Tan, L., Dara, S., & Mayeux, C. (2015). Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data. 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2015.139
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.