The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Software defect association mining and defect correction effort prediction
Open accessAbstract
Much current software defect prediction work focuses on the number of defects remaining in a software system. In this paper, we present association rule mining based methods to predict defect associations and defect correction effort. This is to help developers detect software defects and assist project managers in allocating testing resources more effectively. We applied the proposed methods to the SEL defect data consisting of more than 200 projects over more than 15 years. The results show that, for defect association prediction, the accuracy is very high and the false-negative rate is very low. Likewise, for the defect correction effort prediction, the accuracy for both defect isolation effort prediction and defect correction effort prediction are also high. We compared the defect correction effort prediction method with other types of methods - PART, C4.5, and Naive Bayes - and show that accuracy has been improved by at least 23 percent. We also evaluated the impact of support and confidence levels on prediction accuracy, false-negative rate, false-positive rate, and the number of rules. We found that higher support and confidence levels may not result in higher prediction accuracy, and a sufficient number of rules is a precondition for high prediction accuracy.
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
Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases
Agrawal, R., Imieliński, T., & Swami, A. (1993) · Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/170035.170072 · Cited by 14,907
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
How Long Will It Take to Fix This Bug?
Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T., & Zeller, A. (2007) · Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07:ICSE Workshops 2007) · doi:10.1109/msr.2007.13 · Cited by 375
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
Wahono (2007) · doi:10.3923/jse.2007.1.12 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, Q., Shepperd, M., Cartwright, M., & Mair, C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 69-82
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120484483
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.89
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Software defect association mining and defect correction effort prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2006.1599417
- The paper
- Song, Q., Shepperd, M., Cartwright, M., & Mair, C. (2006). Software defect association mining and defect correction effort prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2006.1599417
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.