Advertisement

Defect prediction model of static code features for cross-company and cross-project software

  • Satwinder Singh
  • Rozy Singla
Original Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Software project metrics are seen needless in software industries but they are useful when some unacceptable situations come in the project (Satapathy et al., Proceedings of the 48th annual convention of CSI, vol 2, 2013). Mainly the focus of various defect prediction studies is to build prediction models using the regional data available within the company. So companies maintain a data repository where data of their past projects can be stored which can be used for defect prediction in the future. However, many companies do not follow this practice. In software engineering, the crucial task is Defect prediction. In this paper, a binary defect prediction model was built and examined if there is any conclusion or not. This paper presents the assets of cross-company and within-company data against software defect prediction. Neural network approach has been used to prepare the model for defect prediction. Further, this paper compares the results of with-in and cross-company defect prediction models. To analyse the results for with-in company two versions of Firefox (i.e. 2.0 and 3.0) were considered; for cross project one version of Mozila Sea Monkey (1.0.1); for cross-company validation one version of LICQ were considered. Main focus of the study is to analyse the behavior or role of software metrics for acceptable level of defect prediction.

Keywords

Defect prediction Object-oriented metrics Artificial neural network (ANN) Cross company defect prediction (CCDP) 

References

  1. 1.
    Mittal P, Singh S, Kahlon KS (2011) Identification of error prone classes for fault prediction using object oriented metrics. In: Abraham A et al (eds) ACC 2011, Part II, CCIS 191, pp 58–68Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rawat MS, Dubey SK (2012) Software defect prediction models for quality improvement: a literature study. IJCSI Int J Comput Sci 9(5):288–296Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF (1994) A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(6):476–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh S, Kahlon KS, Sandhu PS (2010) Re-engineering to analyze and measure object oriented paradigms. In: 2010 2nd IEEE international conference on information management and engineering, ICIMEGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kitchenham BA, Mendes E (2004) A comparison of cross-company and within-company effort estimation models for web applications. In: Proceedings Metrics’04. IEEE Computer Society, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zimmermann T, Nagappan N, Gall H, Giger E, Murphy B (2009) Cross-project defect prediction: a large scale experiment on data vs. domain vs. process. In: Proceedings of ESEC/FSE 2009Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang F, Mockus A, Keivanloo I, Zou Y (2014) Towards building a universal defect prediction model. In: MSR 2014 proceedings of 11th working conference on mining software repositories, pp 182–191Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma Y, Luo G, Zang X, Chen A (2012) Transfer learning for cross-company software defect prediction. Inf Softw Technol 54:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahaweerawat A, Sophatsathit P, Lursinsap C, Musilek P (2015) Fault prediction in object-oriented software using neural network techniques. In: Proceedings of the InTech conference, Huston, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aggarwal KK, Singh Y, Kaur A, Malhotra R (2007) Investigating effect of design metrics on fault proneness in object-oriented systems. J Object Technol 6(10):127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh M, Salaria DS (2013) Software defect prediction tool based on neural network. Int J Comput Appl 70(22):22–28Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canfora G, Lucia AD, Penta MD, Oliveto R, Panichella A, Panichella S (2013) Multi-objective cross-project defect prediction. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE international conference on software testing, verification and validation. IEEE, Luxembourg, pp 252–261Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lessmann S, Baesens B, Mues C, Pietsch S (2008) Benchmarking classification models for software defect prediction: a proposed framework and novel findings. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34(4):485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar Vijai, Sharma Arun, Kumar Rajesh (2013) Applying soft computing approaches to predict defect density in software product releases: an empirical study. Comput Inform 32:203–224zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaur A, Singh S, Kahlon KS (2009) A metric framework for analysis of quality of object oriented design. Int J Comput Inf Eng 3(12):2875–2878Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaur J, Singh S (2016) Neural network based refactoring area identification in software system with object oriented metrics. Indian J Sci Technol 9(10)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hitz M, Montazeri B (1996) Chidamber and Kemerer’s metrics suite: a measurement theory perspective. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(4):267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh S, Kaur S (2017) A systematic literature review: Refactoring for disclosing code smells in object oriented software. Ain Shams Eng JGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh S, Singla R (2017) Classification of defective modules using object-oriented metrics. Inter J Intell Syst Technol Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISTA.2017.081311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song Q, Jia Z, Shepperd M, Ying S, Liu J (2011) A general software defect-proneness prediction framework. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 37(3):356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fukushima Takafumi, Kamei Yasutaka, McIntosh Shane, Yamashita Kazuhiro, Ubayashi Naoyasu (2014) An empirical study of just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models. Proc MSR Proc Work Conf Min Softw Repos 2014:172–181Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Satapathy SC, Avadhani PS, Udgata SK, Lakshminarayana S (2013) ICT and critical infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual convention of CSI, vol 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyCentral University of PunjabBathindaIndia
  2. 2.MOM DepartmentGWPCJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations