Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction

Wang, Song, Liu, Taiyue, Nam, Jaechang, Tan, Lin·2020·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

Software defect prediction, which predicts defective code regions, can assist developers in finding bugs and prioritizing their testing efforts. Traditional defect prediction features often fail to capture the semantic differences between different programs. This degrades the performance of the prediction models built on these traditional features. Thus, the capability to capture the semantics in programs is required to build accurate prediction models. To bridge the gap between semantics and defect prediction features, we propose leveraging a powerful representation-learning algorithm, deep learning, to learn the semantic representations of programs automatically from source code files and code changes. Specifically, we leverage a deep belief network (DBN) to automatically learn semantic features using token vectors extracted from the programs' abstract syntax trees (AST) (for file-level defect prediction models) and source code changes (for change-level defect prediction models). We examine the effectiveness of our approach on two file-level defect prediction tasks (i.e., file-level within-project defect prediction and file-level cross-project defect prediction) and two change-level defect prediction tasks (i.e., change-level within-project defect prediction and change-level cross-project defect prediction). Our experimental results indicate that the DBN-based semantic features can significantly improve the examined defect prediction tasks. Specifically, the improvements of semantic features against existing traditional features (in F1) range from 2.1 to 41.9 percentage points for file-level within-project defect prediction, from 1.5 to 13.4 percentage points for file-level cross-project defect prediction, from 1.0 to 8.6 percentage points for change-level within-project defect prediction, and from 0.6 to 9.9 percentage points for change-level cross-project defect prediction.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2018.2877612

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 114 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S., Liu, T., Nam, J., & Tan, L.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2020-12-01
Volume
46
Issue
12
Pages
1267-1293
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
OpenAlex
W2898435572
Cited by
320
References
114
FWCI
29.33
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: Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2018.2877612
The paper
Wang, S., Liu, T., Nam, J., & Tan, L. (2020). Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2018.2877612

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.