Research article Special Issues

Heterogeneous cross-project defect prediction with multiple source projects based on transfer learning

  • Received: 03 May 2019 Accepted: 08 October 2019 Published: 11 November 2019
  • Cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) aims to predict the defect proneness of target project with the defect data of source project. Existing CPDP methods are based on the assumption that source and target projects should have the same metrics. Heterogeneous cross-project defect prediction (HCPDP) builds a prediction model using heterogeneous source and target projects. Existing HCPDP methods just focus on one source project or multiple source projects with the same metrics. These methods limit the scope of getting the source project. In this paper, we propose Heterogeneous Defect Prediction with Multiple source projects (HDPM) which can use multiple heterogeneous source projects for defect prediction. HDPM based on transfer learning which can learn knowledge from one domain and use it to help with other domain. HDPM constructs a projective matrix between heterogeneous source and target projects to make the distributions of source and target projects similar. We conduct experiments on 14 projects from four public datasets and the results show that HDPM can achieve better performance compared with existing CPDP methods, and outperforms or is comparable to within-project defect prediction method. The use of multiple heterogeneous source projects for defect prediction can effectively extend the data acquisition range of defect prediction and make software defect prediction better applied to software engineering.

    Citation: Xinglong Yin, Lei Liu, Huaxiao Liu, Qi Wu. Heterogeneous cross-project defect prediction with multiple source projects based on transfer learning[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 1020-1040. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020054

    Related Papers:

  • Cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) aims to predict the defect proneness of target project with the defect data of source project. Existing CPDP methods are based on the assumption that source and target projects should have the same metrics. Heterogeneous cross-project defect prediction (HCPDP) builds a prediction model using heterogeneous source and target projects. Existing HCPDP methods just focus on one source project or multiple source projects with the same metrics. These methods limit the scope of getting the source project. In this paper, we propose Heterogeneous Defect Prediction with Multiple source projects (HDPM) which can use multiple heterogeneous source projects for defect prediction. HDPM based on transfer learning which can learn knowledge from one domain and use it to help with other domain. HDPM constructs a projective matrix between heterogeneous source and target projects to make the distributions of source and target projects similar. We conduct experiments on 14 projects from four public datasets and the results show that HDPM can achieve better performance compared with existing CPDP methods, and outperforms or is comparable to within-project defect prediction method. The use of multiple heterogeneous source projects for defect prediction can effectively extend the data acquisition range of defect prediction and make software defect prediction better applied to software engineering.
    加载中


    [1] J. Nam, S. J. Pan and S. Kim, Transfer defect learning, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2013, 382-391. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/6606584.
    [2] X. Y. Jing, S. Ying, Z. W. Zhang, et al., Dictionary learning based software defect prediction, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM, 2014, 414-423. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2568320.
    [3] Z. Mahmood, D. Bowes, P. C. R. Lane, et al., What is the Impact of Imbalance on Software Defect Prediction Performance?, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, ACM, 2015. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2810150.
    [4] C. Tantithamthavorn, Towards a better understanding of the impact of experimental components on defect prediction modeling, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), 2016, 867-870. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/7883423.
    [5] B. Turhan, T. Menzies, A. B. Bener, et al., On the relative value of cross-company and within-company data for defect prediction, Empirical Software Eng., 14 (2009), 540-578.
    [6] Y. Ma, G. Luo, X. Zeng, et al., Transfer learning for cross-company software defect prediction, Inf. Software Technol., 54 (2012), 248-256.
    [7] G. Canfora, A. De Lucia, M. Di Penta, et al., Multi-objective cross-project defect prediction, 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, 2013, 252-261. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/6569737.
    [8] F. Peters, T. Menzies and A. Marcus, Better cross company defect prediction, Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, 2013, 409-418. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2487161.
    [9] L. Chen, B. Fang, Z. Shang, et al., Negative samples reduction in cross-company software defects prediction, Inf. Software Technol., 62 (2015), 67-77.
    [10] J. Nam and S. Kim, Heterogeneous defect prediction, Proceedings of the 2015 10th joint meeting on foundations of software engineering, ACM, 2015, 508-519. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2786814.
    [11] X. Jing, F. Wu, X. Dong, et al., Heterogeneous cross-company defect prediction by unified metric representation and CCA-based transfer learning, Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM, 2015, 496-507. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2786813.
    [12] M. H. Halstead, Elements of Software Science, Elsevier Science, New York, 1977.
    [13] T. J. McCabe, A complexity measure, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 4 (1976), 308-320.
    [14] S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer, A metrics suite for object oriented design, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 20 (1994), 476-493.
    [15] T. L. Graves, A. F. Karr, J. S. Marron, et al., Predicting fault incidence using software change history, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 26 (2000), 653-661.
    [16] K. O. Elish and M. O. Elish, Predicting defect-prone software modules using support vector machines, J. Syst. Software, 81 (2008), 649-660.
    [17] A. S. Andreou and E. Papatheocharous, Software cost estimation using fuzzy decision trees, 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2008, 371-374. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/4639344.
    [18] N. Bettenburg, M. Nagappan and A. E. Hassan, Think locally, act globally: Improving defect and effort prediction models, 2012 9th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2012, 60-69. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/6224300.
    [19] S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, A Survey on Transfer Learning, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 22 (2010), 1345-1359.
    [20] H. F. Chang and A. Mockus, Constructing universal version history, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Mining software repositories, 2006, 76-79. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=1138002.
    [21] T. Menzies, B. Caglayan, E. Kocaguneli, et al., The promise repository of empirical software engineering data, 2012 (2012).
    [22] M. Shepperd, Q. Song, Z. Sun, et al., Data quality: Some comments on the NASA software defect datasets, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 39 (2013), 1208-1215.
    [23] M. D'Ambros, M. Lanza, R. Robbes, An extensive comparison of bug prediction approaches, 2010 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010), 2010, 31-41. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/5463279.
    [24] R. Wu, H. Zhang, S. Kim, et al., Relink: Recovering links between bugs and changes, Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering, ACM, 2011, 15-25. Available from: https://dl_acm.xilesou.top/citation.cfm?id=2025120.
    [25] S. Zhong, T. M. Khoshgoftaar and N. Seliya, Unsupervised Learning for Expert-Based Software Quality Estimation, HASE, 2004, 149-155. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.89.1471&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
    [26] P. S. Bishnu and V. Bhattacherjee, Software fault prediction using quad tree-based k-means clustering algorithm, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 24 (2012), 1146-1150.
    [27] G. Abaei, Z. Rezaei and A. Selamat, Fault prediction by utilizing self-organizing Map and Threshold, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering, 2013, 465-470. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/6720010.
    [28] J. Nam and S. Kim, CLAMI: Defect Prediction on Unlabeled Datasets (T), 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2015, 452-463. Available from: https://ieeexplore_ieee.xilesou.top/abstract/document/7372033.
    [29] F. Zhang, Q. Zheng, Y. Zou, et al., Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM, 2016, 309-320.
    [30] J. Han, J. Pei and M. Kamber, Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, Elsevier, 2012.
    [31] A. B. A. Graf and S. Borer, Normalization in support vector machines, Joint Pattern Recognition Symposium, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001, 277-282.
    [32] M. Harel and S. Mannor, Learning from multiple outlooks, arXiv preprint arXiv1005.0027, 2010.
    [33] L. Yang, L. P. Jing, J. Yu, et al., Heterogeneous transductive transfer learning algorithm, J. Software, 26 (2015), 2762-2780 (in Chinese).
    [34] J. C. Gower and G. B. Dijksterhuis, Procrustes problems, Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004.
    [35] F. Wilcoxon, Individual comparisons by ranking methods, Breakthroughs in Statistics, Springer Series in Statistics (Perspectives in Statistics), Springer, New York, 1992, 196-202.

    © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
  • Reader Comments
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(546) PDF downloads(363) Cited by(0)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(10)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog