The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Better cross company defect prediction
Abstract
How can we find data for quality prediction? Early in the life cycle, projects may lack the data needed to build such predictors. Prior work assumed that relevant training data was found nearest to the local project. But is this the best approach? This paper introduces the Peters filter which is based on the following conjecture: When local data is scarce, more information exists in other projects. Accordingly, this filter selects training data via the structure of other projects. To assess the performance of the Peters filter, we compare it with two other approaches for quality prediction. Within-company learning and cross-company learning with the Burak filter (the state-of-the-art relevancy filter). This paper finds that: 1) within-company predictors are weak for small data-sets; 2) the Peters filter+cross-company builds better predictors than both within-company and the Burak filter+cross-company; and 3) the Peters filter builds 64% more useful predictors than both within-company and the Burak filter+cross-company approaches. Hence, we recommend the Peters filter for cross-company learning.
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
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
Nearest neighbor pattern classification
Cover, T., & Hart, P. (1967) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.1967.1053964 · Cited by 16,936
Cited by
Revisiting the Impact of Classification Techniques on the Performance of Defect Prediction Models
Ghotra, B., McIntosh, S., & Hassan, A. E. (2015) · 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/icse.2015.91 · Cited by 364
An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set
He, P., Li, B., Liu, X., Chen, J., & Ma, Y. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.11.006 · Cited by 309
Bennin, K. E., Keung, J., Phannachitta, P., Monden, A., & Mensah, S. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2017.2731766 · Cited by 298
HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction
Xia, X., Lo, D., Pan, S. J., Nagappan, N., & Wang, X. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2543218 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, F., Menzies, T., & Marcus, A.
- Venue
- 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2013-05
- Pages
- 409-418
- OpenAlex
- W2136706100
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.84
- 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: Better cross company defect prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/msr.2013.6624057
- The paper
- Peters, F., Menzies, T., & Marcus, A. (2013). Better cross company defect prediction. 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). https://doi.org/10.1109/msr.2013.6624057
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.