Multi-Objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction
•
1 gostou•1,077 visualizações
Cross-project defect prediction is very appealing because (i) it allows predicting defects in projects for which the availability of data is limited, and (ii) it allows producing generalizable prediction models. However, existing research suggests that cross-project prediction is particularly challenging and, due to heterogeneity of projects, prediction accuracy is not always very good. This paper proposes a novel, multi-objective approach for cross-project defect prediction, based on a multi-objective logistic regression model built using a genetic algorithm. Instead of providing the software engineer with a single predictive model, the multi-objective approach allows software engineers to choose predictors achieving a compromise between number of likely defect-prone artifacts (effectiveness) and LOC to be analyzed/tested (which can be considered as a proxy of the cost of code inspection). Results of an empirical evaluation on 10 datasets from the Promise repository indicate the superiority and the usefulness of the multi-objective approach with respect to single-objective predictors. Also, the proposed approach outperforms an alternative approach for cross-project prediction, based on local prediction upon clusters of similar classes.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a Multi-Objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction
Semelhante a Multi-Objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction (20)
Mais de Sebastiano Panichella
Mais de Sebastiano Panichella (20)
Último
Último (20)
Multi-Objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction
- 1. Gerardo Canfora Andrea De Lucia Massimiliano Di Penta Rocco Oliveto Annibale Panichella Sebas<ano Panichella Multi-Objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction
- 5. Defect Prediction Spent more resources on components most likely to fail
- 6. Indicators of defects Cached history information Kim at al. ICSE 2007 Change Metrics Moset at al. ICSE 2008. A metrics suite for object oriented design Chidamber at al. TSE 1994
- 7. Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN …
- 8. Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Within Project
- 9. Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Within Project Issue: Size of the Training Set
- 10. Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Predic<ng Model Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Within Project Issue: Size of the Training Set Past Projects New Project
- 11. Project B Project A Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Predic<ng Model Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Within Project Cross-Project Issue: Size of the Training Set
- 12. Project B Project A Defect Prediction Methodology Predic<ng Model Project Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Predic<ng Model Test Set Training Set Defect Prone Class1 YES Class2 YES Class3 NO … YES ClassN … Within Project Cross-Project Issue: Size of the Training Set Issue: The predicting accuracy can be lower
- 13. Cost Effectiveness 1) Cross-project does not necessarily works worse than within-project 2) Better precision (accuracy) does not mirror less inspection cost 3) Traditional predicting model: logistic regression Recaling the “imprecision” of Cross- project Defect Prediction, Rahman at al. FSE 2012
- 14. Cost Effectiveness: example Class A Class B Class C Class D
- 15. Cost Effectiveness: example Predicting model 1 Class A Class B Class A Class C Class D 100 LOC 10,000 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC Predicting model 2 Class A Class B Class C Class D
- 16. Cost Effectiveness: example Predicting model 1 Class A Class B Class A Class C Class D BUG BUG 100 LOC 10,000 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC Predicting model 2 Class A Class B Class C Class D
- 17. Cost Effectiveness: example Predicting model 1 Class A Class B Class A Class C Class D BUG BUG 100 LOC 10,000 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC Precision = 50 % Cost =10,100 LOC Predicting model 2 Class A Class B Class C Class D
- 18. Cost Effectiveness: an example Predicting model 1 Class A Class B Class A Class C Class D BUG BUG 100 LOC 10,000 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC Precision = 50 % Cost =10,100 LOC Predicting model 2 Precision = 33 % Cost = 300 LOC Class A Class B Class C Class D
- 19. Class A Class B Class C Class D Cost Effectiveness: an example Predicting model 1 Class A Class B Class A Class C Class D BUG BUG 100 LOC 10,000 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC 100 LOC Predicting model 2 Precision does not mirrorthe inspection cost All the existing predicting models work on precision and not on cost We need COST oriented models
- 20. Mul+-‐objec+ve Logis+c Regression
- 21. Building Predicting Model on Training Set Training Set P1 P2 … Class1 m11 m12 … Class2 m21 m22 … Class3 m31 m32 … Class4 … … … … … … … Logis<c Regression Pred. C1 1 C2 1 C3 0 C4 1 … 0
- 22. Building Predicting Model on Training Set Training Set Logis<c Regression Pred. C1 1 C2 1 C3 0 C4 1 … 0 Actual Val C1 1 C2 0 C3 1 C4 1 … 0 P1 P2 … Class1 m11 m12 … Class2 m21 m22 … Class3 m31 m32 … Class4 … … … … … … …
- 23. Building Predicting Model on Training Set Training Set Logis<c Regression Pred. C1 1 C2 1 C3 0 C4 1 … 0 Actual Val C1 1 C2 0 C3 1 C4 1 … 0 Comparison P1 P2 … Class1 m11 m12 … Class2 m21 m22 … Class3 m31 m32 … Class4 … … … … … … …
- 24. Building Predicting Model on Training Set Training Set Logis<c Regression Pred. C1 1 C2 1 C3 0 C4 1 … 0 Actual Val C1 1 C2 0 C3 1 C4 1 … 0 Comparison P1 P2 … Class1 m11 m12 … Class2 m21 m22 … Class3 m31 m32 … Class4 … … … … … … … GOAL: minimazing the predicting error (PRECISION)
- 25. Building Predicting Model on Training Set Training Set Logis<c Regression Pred. C1 1 C2 1 C3 0 C4 1 … 0 Actual Val C1 1 C2 0 C3 1 C4 1 … 0 Comparison P1 P2 … Class1 m11 m12 … Class2 m21 m22 … Class3 m31 m32 … Class4 … … … … … … … GOAL: minimazing the predicting error (PRECISION)
- 26. Multi-objective Logistic Regression Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 LOC 100 95 … 110 10 * = Cost 100 0 … 110 0 Ispection Cost = 210 LOC
- 27. Multi-objective Logistic Regression Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 LOC 100 95 … 110 10 * = Cost 100 0 … 110 0 Ispection Cost = 210 LOC Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 Actual Values 1 1 … 1 0 * = #Bug 1 0 … 1 0 Effectiveness = 2 defects
- 28. Multi-objective Logistic Regression ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧ ⋅= ⋅= ∑ ∑ i ii i i i ActualPredessEffectiven CostPredCostIspectionmin max Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 LOC 100 95 … 110 10 * = Cost 100 0 … 110 0 Ispection Cost = 210 LOC Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 Actual Values 1 1 … 1 0 * = #Bug 1 0 … 1 0 Effectiveness = 2 defects
- 29. Multi-objective Logistic Regression ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧ ⋅= ⋅= ∑ ∑ i ii i i i ActualedessEffectiven CostPredCostIspection Pr min max Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 LOC 100 95 … 110 10 * = Cost 100 0 … 110 0 Ispection Cost = 210 LOC Pred. 1 0 … 1 0 Actual Values 1 1 … 1 0 * = #Bug 1 0 … 1 0 Effectiveness = 2 defects
- 30. a + b mi1 + c mi2 + … Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧ ⋅= ⋅= ∑ ∑ i ii i i i ActualedessEffectiven CostPredCostIspection Pr min max . 1 e e Pred + = a + b mi1 + c mi2 + … Chromosome (a, b,c , …) Fitness Function Multiple objectives are optimized using Pareto efficient approaches
- 31. Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm Pareto Optimality: all solutionsthat are not dominated by anyother solutions form the Paretooptimal set. Multiple otpimal solutions (models) can be found Cost Effectiveness The frontier allows to make a well-informed decision that balances the trade-offs between the two objectives
- 33. Research Questions RQ1: How does the multi-objective (MO)prediction perform, compared to single-objective (SO) prediction
- 34. Research Questions RQ1: How does the multi-objective (MO)prediction perform, compared to single-objective (SO) prediction Cross-project MO vs. cross-project SO vs. within project SO
- 35. Research Questions RQ2: How does the proposed approach perform, comparedto the local prediction approach by Menzie et al. ? RQ1: How does the multi-objective (MO)prediction perform, compared to single-objective (SO) prediction Cross-project MO vs. cross-project SO vs. within project SO
- 36. Research Questions RQ2: How does the proposed approach perform, comparedto the local prediction approach by Menzie et al. ? RQ1: How does the multi-objective (MO)prediction perform, compared to single-objective (SO) prediction Cross-project MO vs. cross-project SO vs. within project SO Cross-project MO vs. Local Prediction
- 37. Experiment outline • 10 java projects from PROMISE datasetü different sizes ü different context applica<on
- 38. • 10 java projects from PROMISE datasetü different sizes ü different context applica<on Experiment outline • Cross-projects defect prediction: ü Training model on nine projects and test on the remaining one (10 <mes) RQ1
- 39. • 10 java projects from PROMISE datasetü different sizes ü different context applica<on Experiment outline • Cross-projects defect prediction: ü Training model on nine projects and test on the remaining one (10 <mes) • Within project defect prediction: ü 10 cross-‐folder valida<on RQ1 RQ1
- 40. • 10 java projects from PROMISE datasetü different sizes ü different context applica<on Experiment outline • Cross-projects defect prediction: ü Training model on nine projects and test on the remaining one (10 <mes) • Within project defect prediction: ü 10 cross-‐folder valida<on • Local prediction: ü K-‐means clustering algorithm ü Silhoue]e Coefficient RQ1 RQ1 RQ2
- 41. Results
- 43. Cross-project MO vs. Cross-project SO 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KLOC Cross-‐project SO Cross project MO
- 44. Cross-project MO vs. Cross-project SO 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KLOC Cross-‐project SO Cross project MO The proposed multi-objective model Outperform the single-objective one
- 45. Cross-project MO vs. Within-project SO 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 KLOC Within project SO Cross project MO
- 46. Cross-project MO vs. Within-project SO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Precision Within project SO Cross project MO
- 47. Cross-project MO vs. Within-project SO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Precision Within project SO Cross project MO Cross-project prediction is worse than within-project prediction in terms of PRECISION
- 48. Cross-project MO vs. Within-project SO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Precision Within project SO Cross project MO Cross-project prediction is worse than within-project prediction in terms of PRECISION But it is better than within-project predictors in term of COST-EFFECTIVENESS
- 49. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KLOC Local Predic<on Cross project MO Cross-project MO vs. Local Prediction
- 50. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KLOC Local Predic<on Cross project MO Cross-project MO vs. Local Prediction The multi-objective predictor outperforms the local predictor.
- 51. Conclusions
- 52. Conclusions
- 53. Conclusions
- 54. Conclusions