The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implications of ceiling effects in defect predictors
Open accessAbstract
Context: There are many methods that input static code features and output a predictor for faulty code modules. These data mining methods have hit a "performance ceiling"; i.e., some inherent upper bound on the amount of information offered by, say, static code features when identifying modules which contain faults. Objective: We seek an explanation for this ceiling effect. Perhaps static code features have "limited information content"; i.e. their information can be quickly and completely discovered by even simple learners. Method:An initial literature review documents the ceiling effect in other work. Next, using three sub-sampling techniques (under-, over-, and micro-sampling), we look for the lower useful bound on the number of training instances. Results: Using micro-sampling, we find that as few as 50 instances yield as much information as larger training sets. Conclusions: We have found much evidence for the limited information hypothesis. Further progress in learning defect predictors may not come from better algorithms. Rather, we need to be improving the information content of the training data, perhaps with case-based reasoning methods.
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
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
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
Shin, Y., Meneely, A., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. A. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2010.81 · Cited by 607
A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on Cross Project Defect Prediction
Hosseini, S., Turhan, B., & Gunarathna, D. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2017.2770124 · Cited by 317
Self-citationHYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction
Xia, X., Lo, D., Pan, S. J., Nagappan, N., & Wang, X. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2016.2543218 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Menzies, T., Turhan, B., Bener, A., Gay, G., Cukic, B., & Jiang, Y.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Predictor models in software engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2008-05-12
- Pages
- 47-54
- OpenAlex
- W2130883460
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.49
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: Implications of ceiling effects in defect predictors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1370788.1370801
- The paper
- Menzies, T., Turhan, B., Bener, A., Gay, G., Cukic, B., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Implications of ceiling effects in defect predictors. Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Predictor models in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1370788.1370801
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.