A Classification Scheme for Studies on Fault-Prone Components
Various approaches are presented in the literature to identify faultprone components. The approaches represent a wide range of characteristics and capabilities, but they are not comparable, since different aspects are compared and different data sets are used. In order to enable a consistent and fair comparison, we propose a classification scheme, with two parts, 1) a characterisation scheme which captures information on input, output and model characteristics, and 2) an evaluation scheme which is designed for comparing different models’ capabilities. The schemes and the rationale for the elements of the schemes are presented in the paper. Important capabilities to evaluate when comparing different models are rate of misclassification, classification efficiency and total classification cost. Further, the schemes are applied in an example study to illustrate the use of the schemes. It is expected that applying these schemes would help researchers to compare different approaches and thereby enable building of a more consistent knowledge base in software engineering. In addition it is expected to help practitioners to choose a suitable prediction approach for a specific environment by filling out the characterisation scheme and making an evaluation in their own environment.
KeywordsEvaluation Scheme External Input Cost Ratio Ranking Model Output Type
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Kalaichelvan, K.S and Goel, N.,“Early Quality Prediction: A Case Study in Telecommunications”, IEEE Software (January 1996), 65–71.Google Scholar
- 4.Khoshgoftaar, T.M, Allen, E.B., Halstead, R. and Trio, G.P., “Detection of Fault-prone Software Modules During a Spiral Life Cycle”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, (Monterey, California, USA, November 96) 69–76.Google Scholar
- 5.Ohlsson, N., Helander, M. and Wohlin, C., “Quality Improvement by Identification of Fault-Prone Modules using Software Design Metrics”, In Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Software Quality, (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1996), 1–13.Google Scholar
- 7.Ohlsson, N. and Wohlin, C., “Experiences of Fault Data in a Large Software System”, Information Technology Management: An International Journal, 2(4), 1998, 163–171.Google Scholar
- 8.Schneidewind, N. F., “Software Metrics Model for Integrating Quality Control and Prediction”, in Proceedings Fourth International Software Metrics Symposium, (Albuquerque, NM, USA, November 1997) 402–415.Google Scholar
- 10.Khoshgoftaar, T.M. and Allen, E.B., “The Impact of Cost of Misclassification on Software ] Quality Modeling”, in Proceedings Fourth International Software Metrics Symposium, (Albuquerque, NM, USA, November 1997), 54–62.Google Scholar
- 11.Fenton, N.E. and Pfleeger, S.L., Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, Thomson Computer Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- 12.Ohlsson, M.C. and Wohlin, C., “Identification of Green, Yellow and Red Legacy Components”, In Proceeding of International Conference on Software Maintenance, (Bethesda, Washington D.C, USA, November 1998), 6–15.Google Scholar
- 13.ITU, “Recommendation Z.100: SDL-Specification and Description Language”, 1988.Google Scholar