Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8784
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Shepperd, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Bowes, D | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hall, T | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-07-28T14:46:22Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-07-28T14:46:22Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(6), 603 - 616, 2014 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0098-5589 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6824804 | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8784 | - |
dc.description | This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final published article is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2014 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other users, including reprinting/ republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted components of this work in other works. | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Background. The ability to predict defect-prone software components would be valuable. Consequently, there have been many empirical studies to evaluate the performance of different techniques endeavouring to accomplish this effectively. However no one technique dominates and so designing a reliable defect prediction model remains problematic. Objective. We seek to make sense of the many conflicting experimental results and understand which factors have the largest effect onpredictive performance. Method. We conduct a meta-analysis of all relevant, high quality primary studies of defect prediction to determine what factors influence predictive performance. This is based on 42 primary studies that satisfy our inclusion criteria that collectively report 600 sets of empirical prediction results. By reverse engineering a common response variable we build arandom effects ANOVA model to examine the relative contribution of four model building factors (classifier, data set, input metrics and researcher group) to model prediction performance. Results. Surprisingly we find that the choice of classifier has little impact upon performance (1.3 percent) and in contrast the major (31 percent) explanatory factor is the researcher group. It matters more who does the work than what is done. Conclusion. To overcome this high level of researcher bias, defect prediction researchers should (i) conduct blind analysis, (ii) improve reporting protocols and (iii) conduct more intergroup studies in order to alleviate expertise issues. Lastly, research is required to determine whether this bias is prevalent in other applications domains. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. | en_US |
dc.subject | Meta-analysis | en_US |
dc.subject | Researcher bias | en_US |
dc.subject | Software defect prediction | en_US |
dc.title | Researcher bias: The use of machine learning in software defect prediction | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2014.2322358 | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences/Dept of Computer Science | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences/Dept of Computer Science/Computer Science | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/Brunel Business School - URCs and Groups | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/Brunel Business School - URCs and Groups/Centre for Research into Entrepreneurship, International Business and Innovation in Emerging Markets | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Brunel Institute for Ageing Studies | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Brunel Institute of Cancer Genetics and Pharmacogenomics | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Health Sciences and Social Care - URCs and Groups/Centre for Systems and Synthetic Biology | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics - URCs and Groups | - |
pubs.organisational-data | /Brunel/University Research Centres and Groups/School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics - URCs and Groups/Multidisclipary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) | - |
Appears in Collections: | Computer Science Dept of Computer Science Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fulltext.pdf | 430.72 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open | |
Supplementary Materials.pdf | 177.64 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.