Abstract
Abstract Identification and classification of bugs, e.g., security and performance are a preemptive and fundamental practice which contributes to the development of secure and efficient software. Software Quality Assurance (SQA) needs to classify bugs into relevant categories, e.g., security and performance bugs since one type of bug may have a higher preference over another, thus facilitating software evolution and maintenance. In addition to classification, it would be ideal for the SQA manager to prioritize security and performance bugs based on the level of perseverance, severity, or impact to assign relevant developers whose expertise is aligned with the identification of such bugs, thus facilitating triaging. The aim of this research is to compare and analyze the prediction accuracy of machine learning algorithms, i.e., Artificial neural network (ANN), Support vector machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes (NB), Decision tree (DT), Logistic regression (LR), and K-nearest neighbor (KNN) to identify security and performance bugs from the bug repository. We first label the existing dataset from the Bugzilla repository with the help of a software security expert to train the algorithms. Our research type is explanatory, and our research method is controlled experimentation, in which the independent variable is prediction accuracy and the dependent variables are ANN, SVM, NB, DT, LR, and KNN. First, we applied preprocessing, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency feature extraction methods, and then applied classification algorithms. The results were measured through accuracy, precision, recall, and F-measure and then the results were compared and validated through the ten-fold cross-validation technique. Comparative analysis reveals that two algorithms (SVM and LR) perform better in terms of precision (0.99) for performance bugs and three algorithms (SVM, ANN, and LR) perform better in terms of F1 score for security bugs as compared to other classification algorithms which are essentially due to the linear dataset and extensive number of features in the dataset.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.