The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A General Software Defect-Proneness Prediction Framework
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND - Predicting defect-prone software components is an economically important activity and so has received a good deal of attention. However, making sense of the many, and sometimes seemingly inconsistent, results is difficult. OBJECTIVE - We propose and evaluate a general framework for software defect prediction that supports 1) unbiased and 2) comprehensive comparison between competing prediction systems. METHOD - The framework is comprised of 1) scheme evaluation and 2) defect prediction components. The scheme evaluation analyzes the prediction performance of competing learning schemes for given historical data sets. The defect predictor builds models according to the evaluated learning scheme and predicts software defects with new data according to the constructed model. In order to demonstrate the performance of the proposed framework, we use both simulation and publicly available software defect data sets. RESULTS - The results show that we should choose different learning schemes for different data sets (i.e., no scheme dominates), that small details in conducting how evaluations are conducted can completely reverse findings, and last, that our proposed framework is more effective and less prone to bias than previous approaches. CONCLUSIONS - Failure to properly or fully evaluate a learning scheme can be misleading; however, these problems may be overcome by our proposed framework.
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
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 systematic review of machine learning techniques for software fault prediction
Malhotra, R. (2015) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.023 · Cited by 620
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
Automated parameter optimization of classification techniques for defect prediction models
Tantithamthavorn, C., McIntosh, S., Hassan, A. E., & Matsumoto, K. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2884781.2884857 · Cited by 331
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, Q., Jia, Z., Shepperd, M., Ying, S., & Liu, J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-370
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2112658968
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.82
- 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: A General Software Defect-Proneness Prediction Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2010.90
- The paper
- Song, Q., Jia, Z., Shepperd, M., Ying, S., & Liu, J. (2011). A General Software Defect-Proneness Prediction Framework. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2010.90
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.