The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using public domain metrics to estimate software development effort
Open accessAbstract
The authors investigate the accuracy of cost estimates when applying most commonly used modeling techniques to a large-scale industrial data set which is professionally maintained by the International Software Standards Benchmarking Group (ISBSG). The modeling techniques applied are ordinary least squares regression (OLS), analogy based estimation, stepwise ANOVA, CART, and robust regression. The questions addresses in the study are related to important issues. The first is the appropriate selection of a technique in a given context. The second is the assessment of the feasibility of using multi-organizational data compared to the benefits from company-specific data collection. We compare company-specific models with models based on multi-company data. This is done by using the estimates derived for one company that contributed to the ISBSG data set and estimates from using carefully matched data from the rest of the ISBSG data. When using the ISBSG data set to derive estimates for the company, generally poor results were obtained. Robust regression and OLS performed most accurately. When using the company's own data as the basis for estimation, OLS, a CART-variant, and analogy performed best. In contrast to previous studies, the estimation accuracy when using the company's data is significantly higher than when using the rest of the ISBSG data set. Thus, from these results, the company that contributed to the ISBSG data set, would be better off when using its own data for cost estimation.
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
Robust Regression and Outlier Detection
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Leroy, A. M. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725382 · Cited by 5,609
Cited by
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
Pospieszny, P., Czarnacka-Chrobot, B., & Kobylinski, A. (2018) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.11.066 · Cited by 247
Data mining techniques for software effort estimation: a comparative study
Dejaeger, K., Verbeke, W., Martens, D., & Baesens, B. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.55 · Cited by 224
Guidelines for the Search Strategy to Update Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering
Wohlin, C., Mendes, E., Felizardo, K. R., & Kalinowski, M. (2020) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106366 · Cited by 147
The role and value of replication in empirical software engineering results
Shepperd, M., Ajienka, N., & Counsell, S. (2018) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.01.006 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Jeffery, R., Ruhe, M., & Wieczorek, I.
- Venue
- Proceedings Seventh International Software Metrics Symposium
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2001
- Pages
- 16-27
- OpenAlex
- W2129707602
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.70
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: Using public domain metrics to estimate software development effort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/metric.2001.915512
- The paper
- Jeffery, R., Ruhe, M., & Wieczorek, I. (2001). Using public domain metrics to estimate software development effort. Proceedings Seventh International Software Metrics Symposium. https://doi.org/10.1109/metric.2001.915512
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.