The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reducing Features to Improve Code Change-Based Bug Prediction
Abstract
Machine learning classifiers have recently emerged as a way to predict the introduction of bugs in changes made to source code files. The classifier is first trained on software history, and then used to predict if an impending change causes a bug. Drawbacks of existing classifier-based bug prediction techniques are insufficient performance for practical use and slow prediction times due to a large number of machine learned features. This paper investigates multiple feature selection techniques that are generally applicable to classification-based bug prediction methods. The techniques discard less important features until optimal classification performance is reached. The total number of features used for training is substantially reduced, often to less than 10 percent of the original. The performance of Naive Bayes and Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers when using this technique is characterized on 11 software projects. Naive Bayes using feature selection provides significant improvement in buggy F-measure (21 percent improvement) over prior change classification bug prediction results (by the second and fourth authors [28]). The SVM's improvement in buggy F-measure is 9 percent. Interestingly, an analysis of performance for varying numbers of features shows that strong performance is achieved at even 1 percent of the original number of features.
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 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit
Massey, F. J. (1951) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769 · Cited by 7,210
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of ReliefF and RReliefF
Robnik-Šikonja, M., & Kononenko, I. (2003) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1025667309714 · Cited by 3,025 · cited 1×
“Relief-F attribute selection—Relief-F in an extension to the Relief algorithm [31].”
Method
Cited by
Weiss, K., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Wang, D. (2016) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-016-0043-6 · Cited by 6,260
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
An Empirical Study of Model-Agnostic Techniques for Defect Prediction Models
Jiarpakdee, J., Tantithamthavorn, C. K., Dam, H. K., & Grundy, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2982385 · Cited by 148
CCT5: A Code-Change-Oriented Pre-trained Model
Lin, B., Wang, S., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Xia, X., & Mao, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616339 · Cited by 69
Pre-training Code Representation with Semantic Flow Graph for Effective Bug Localization
Du, Y., & Yu, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616338 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Shivaji, S., Whitehead, E. J., Akella, R., & Kim, S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 552-569
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- OpenAlex
- W2050496630
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.21
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Reducing Features to Improve Code Change-Based Bug Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2012.43
- The paper
- Shivaji, S., Whitehead, E. J., Akella, R., & Kim, S. (2013). Reducing Features to Improve Code Change-Based Bug Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2012.43
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.