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
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.
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
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
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
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
(2011) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-19715-5 · Cited by 25,437
Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks
Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1127647 · Cited by 20,928
The WEKA data mining software: an update
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., & Witten, I. H. (2009) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1656274.1656278 · Cited by 17,750
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0082 · Cited by 12,223
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
Cited by
Software Defect Prediction Using Ensemble Learning: A Systematic Literature Review
Matloob, F., Ghazal, T. M., Taleb, N., Aftab, S., Ahmad, M., Khan, M. A., Abbas, S., & Soomro, T. R. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3095559 · Cited by 293
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
Predicting Defective Lines Using a Model-Agnostic Technique
Wattanakriengkrai, S., Thongtanunam, P., Tantithamthavorn, C., Hata, H., & Matsumoto, K. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.3023177 · Cited by 137
A Systematic Literature Review on the Use of Deep Learning in Software Engineering Research
Watson, C., Cooper, N., Palacio, D. N., Moran, K., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3485275 · Cited by 137
AI-driven innovations in software engineering: a review of current practices and future directions
Alenezi, M., & Akour, M. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15031344 · Cited by 121
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.