Abstract

An essential objective of software development is to locate and fix defects ahead of schedule that could be expected under diverse circumstances. Many software development activities are performed by individuals, which may lead to different software bugs over the development to occur, causing disappointments in the not-so-distant future. Thus, the prediction of software defects in the first stages has become a primary interest in the field of software engineering. Various software defect prediction (SDP) approaches that rely on software metrics have been proposed in the last two decades. Bagging, support vector machines (SVM), decision tree (DS), and random forest (RF) classifiers are known to perform well to predict defects. This paper studies and compares these supervised machine learning and ensemble classifiers on 10 NASA datasets. The experimental results showed that, in the majority of cases, RF was the best performing classifier compared to the others.

Highlights

  • A software defect is a bug, fault, or error in a program that causes improper outcomes

  • Various software defect prediction (SDP) approaches that rely on software metrics have been proposed in the last two decades

  • It is obvious that the random forest (RF) classifier attained the highest accuracy scores for the PC1, PC3, PC4, KC2, MC1, and CM1 datasets compared to other classifiers, indicating better predictions of defective instances performed by the RF classifiers in these datasets

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A software defect is a bug, fault, or error in a program that causes improper outcomes. Software defects are programming errors that may occur because of errors in the source code, requirements, or design. Defects negatively affect software quality and software reliability [1]. They increase maintenance costs and efforts to resolve them. Software development teams can detect bugs by analyzing software testing results, but it is costly and time-consuming by testing entire software modules. As such, identifying defective modules in early

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call