Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Supplement 3, pp 6953–6961 | Cite as

Feature selection for software effort estimation with localized neighborhood mutual information

  • Qin LiuEmail author
  • Jiakai Xiao
  • Hongming Zhu


Feature selection is usually employed before applying case based reasoning (CBR) for Software Effort Estimation (SEE). Unfortunately, most feature selection methods treat CBR as a black box method so there is no guarantee on the appropriateness of CBR on selected feature subset. The key to solve the problem is to measure the appropriateness of CBR assumption for a given feature set. In this paper, a measure called localized neighborhood mutual information (LNI) is proposed for this purpose and a greedy method called LNI based feature selection (LFS) is designed for feature selection. Experiment with leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) on 6 benchmark datasets demonstrates that: (1) CBR makes effective estimation with the LFS selected subset compared with a randomized baseline method. Compared with three representative feature selection methods, (2) LFS achieves optimal MAR value on 3 out of 6 datasets with a 14% average improvement and (3) LFS achieves optimal MMRE on 5 out of 6 datasets with a 24% average improvement.


Feature selection Case based reasoning Neighborhood mutual information Software effort estimation 


  1. 1.
    Boehm, B., Abts, C., Chulani, S.: Software development cost estimation approaches: a survey. Ann. Softw. Eng. 10(1–4), 177–205 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vergara, J.R., Esté, P.A.: A review of feature selection methods based on mutual information. Neural Comput. Appl. 24(1), 175–186 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernandes, S.L., Gurupur, V.P., Sunder, N.R., Arunkumar, N., Kadry, S.: A novel nonintrusive decision support approach for heart rate measurement. Pattern Recognit. Lett. (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keung, J.W., Kitchenham, B.A., Jeffery, D.R.: Analogy-X: providing statistical inference to analogy-based software cost estimation. IEEE Softw. Eng. Trans. 34(4), 471–484 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guyon, I., Elisseeff, A.E.: An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1157–1182 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu, L., Liu, H.: Feature selection for high-dimensional data: A fast correlation-based filter solution. In; proceedings of the ICML (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battiti, R.: Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised neural net learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 5(4), 537–550 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esté, V., Pablo, A., et al.: Normalized mutual information feature selection. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 20(2), 189–201 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, H., et al.: Feature selection with dynamic mutual information. Pattern Recogn. 42(7), 1330–1339 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng, H., Long, F., Ding, C.: Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27(8), 1226–1238 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, Q., et al.: Measuring relevance between discrete and continuous features based on neighborhood mutual information. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(9), 10737–10750 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, M.A.: Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. The University of Waikato, Hamilton (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A., Kieffer, J.: Elements of information theory. SIAM Rev. 36(3), 509–510 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arunkumar, N., Kumar, K.R., Venkataraman, V.: Automatic detection of epileptic seizures using new entropy measures. J. Med. Imaging Health Inform 6(3), 724–730 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menzies, T., Krishna, R., Pryor D.: The promise repository of empirical software engineering data. (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Hulse, J., Khoshgoftaar, T.M.: A comprehensive empirical evaluation of missing value imputation in noisy software measurement data. J. Syst. Softw. 81(5), 691–708 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shepperd, M., MacDonell, S.: Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(8), 820–827 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitchenham, B.A., et al. What accuracy statistics really measure [software estimation]. In: Proceedings in Software, IEE (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kampenes, V.B., et al.: A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(11), 1073–1086 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenthal, R.: Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., Valentine, J.C. (eds.) The Handbook of Research Synthesis, pp. 231–244. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Hillsdale (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Software EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations