The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Applying Novel Resampling Strategies To Software Defect Prediction
Abstract
Due to the tremendous complexity and sophistication of software, improving software reliability is an enormously difficult task. We study the software defect prediction problem, which focuses on predicting which modules will experience a failure during operation. Numerous studies have applied machine learning to software defect prediction; however, skewness in defect-prediction datasets usually undermines the learning algorithms. The resulting classifiers will often never predict the faulty minority class. This problem is well known in machine learning and is often referred to as learning from unbalanced datasets. We examine stratification, a widely used technique for learning unbalanced data that has received little attention in software defect prediction. Our experiments are focused on the SMOTE technique, which is a method of over-sampling minority-class examples. Our goal is to determine if SMOTE can improve recognition of defect-prone modules, and at what cost. Our experiments demonstrate that after SMOTE resampling, we have a more balanced classification. We found an improvement of at least 23% in the average geometric mean classification accuracy on four benchmark datasets.
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
Cited by
A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering
Hall, T., Beecham, S., Bowes, D., Gray, D., & Counsell, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.103 · Cited by 1,154
A novel ensemble method for classifying imbalanced data
Sun, Z., Song, Q., Zhu, X., Sun, H., Xu, B., & Zhou, Y. (2015) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2014.11.014 · Cited by 414
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
An under‐sampled software defect prediction method based on hybrid multi‐objective cuckoo search
Cai, X., Niu, Y., Geng, S., Zhang, J., Cui, Z., Li, J., & Chen, J. (2020) · Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.5478 · Cited by 267
Software defect prediction using cost-sensitive neural network
Arar, Ö. F., & Ayan, K. (2015) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.045 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Pelayo, L., & Dick, S.
- Venue
- NAFIPS 2007 - 2007 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2007-06
- Pages
- 69-72
- OpenAlex
- W2103715428
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.24
- 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: Applying Novel Resampling Strategies To Software Defect Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/nafips.2007.383813
- The paper
- Pelayo, L., & Dick, S. (2007). Applying Novel Resampling Strategies To Software Defect Prediction. NAFIPS 2007 - 2007 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/nafips.2007.383813
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.