Performance Analysis of Feature Selection Methods in Software Defect Prediction: A Search Method Approach
Source abstract
Abstract
Software Defect Prediction (SDP) models are built using software metrics derived from software systems. The quality of SDP models depends largely on the quality of software metrics (dataset) used to build the SDP models. High dimensionality is one of the data quality problems that affect the performance of SDP models. Feature selection (FS) is a proven method for addressing the dimensionality problem. However, the choice of FS method for SDP is still a problem, as most of the empirical studies on FS methods for SDP produce contradictory and inconsistent quality outcomes. Those FS methods behave differently due to different underlining computational characteristics. This could be due to the choices of search methods used in FS because the impact of FS depends on the choice of search method. It is hence imperative to comparatively analyze the FS methods performance based on different search methods in SDP. In this paper, four filter feature ranking (FFR) and fourteen filter feature subset selection (FSS) methods were evaluated using four different classifiers over five software defect datasets obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) repository. The experimental analysis showed that the application of FS improves the predictive performance of classifiers and the performance of FS methods can vary across datasets and classifiers. In the FFR methods, Information Gain demonstrated the greatest improvements in the performance of the prediction models. In FSS methods, Consistency Feature Subset Selection based on Best First Search had the best influence on the prediction models. However, prediction models based on FFR proved to be more stable than those based on FSS methods. Hence, we conclude that FS methods improve the performance of SDP models, and that there is no single best FS method, as their performance varied according to datasets and the choice of the prediction model. However, we recommend the use of FFR methods as the prediction models based on FFR are more stable in terms of predictive performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Software Engineering Research · Software Reliability and Analysis Research · Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak 32610, Malaysia
Department of Computer Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin 240103, Nigeria
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. Fenton, N., and Bieman, J. (2014). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, CRC Press.10.1201/b17461 ↗
2. A parallel framework for software defect detection and metric selection on cloud computing10.1007/s10586-017-0892-6 ↗
3. A fuzzy logic based approach for phase-wise software defects prediction using software metrics10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.001 ↗
4. A Framework for Software Defect Prediction and Metric Selection10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2785445 ↗
5. Progress on approaches to software defect prediction10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0148 ↗
6. Tan, M., Tan, L., Dara, S., and Mayeux, C. (2015, January 16–24). Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 2, Florence, Italy.10.1109/ICSE.2015.139 ↗
7. An empirical comparison of model validation techniques for defect prediction models10.1109/TSE.2016.2584050 ↗
8. An improved SDA based defect prediction framework for both within-project and cross-project class-imbalance problems10.1109/TSE.2016.2597849 ↗
9. Software defect prediction using stacked denoising autoencoders and two-stage ensemble learning10.1016/j.infsof.2017.11.008 ↗
10. Software defect prediction using cost-sensitive neural network10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.045 ↗
11. Zhang, F., Zheng, Q., Zou, Y., and Hassan, A.E. (2016, January 14–22). Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, Austin, TX, USA.10.1145/2884781.2884839 ↗
12. A comparative study to benchmark cross-project defect prediction approaches10.1109/TSE.2017.2724538 ↗
13. Studying just-in-time defect prediction using cross-project models10.1007/s10664-015-9400-x ↗
14. Grbac, T.G., Mausa, G., and Basic, B.D. (2013, January 15–17). Stability of Software Defect Prediction in Relation to Levels of Data Imbalance. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement, and Applications (SQAMIA), Novi Sad, Serbia.
15. The performance stability of defect prediction models with class imbalance: An empirical study10.1587/transinf.2016EDP7204 ↗
16. Software Defect Prediction Using Ensemble Learning: An ANP Based Evaluation Method10.46792/fuoyejet.v3i2.200 ↗
17. A PROMETHEE based evaluation of software defect predictors
18. Comparative Analysis of Selected Heterogeneous Classifiers for Software Defects Prediction Using Filter-Based Feature Selection Methods10.46792/fuoyejet.v3i1.178 ↗
19. Agarwal, S., and Tomar, D. (2014, January 1–2). Prediction of Software Defects Using Twin Support Vector Machine. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Networks (ISCON), Mathura, India.10.1109/ICISCON.2014.6965232 ↗
20. An effective ensemble classification framework using random forests and a correlation based feature selection technique10.1111/tgis.12268 ↗
21. Khalid, S., Khalil, T., and Nasreen, S. (2014, January 27–29). A Survey of Feature Selection and Feature Extraction Techniques in Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2014 Science and Information Conference (SAI), London, UK.10.1109/SAI.2014.6918213 ↗
22. Chinnaswamy, A., and Srinivasan, R. (2016). Hybrid Feature Selection Using Correlation Coefficient and Particle Swarm Optimization on Microarray Gene Expression Data. Innovations in Bio-Inspired Computing and Applications, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-28031-8_20 ↗
23. High-dimensional hybrid feature selection using interaction information-guided search10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.002 ↗
24. A survey on semi-supervised feature selection methods10.1016/j.patcog.2016.11.003 ↗
25. Feature Selection Methods: Case of Filter and Wrapper Approaches for Maximising Classification Accuracy
26. Afzal, W., and Torkar, R. (2016). Towards Benchmarking Feature Subset Selection Methods for Software Fault Prediction. Computational Intelligence and Quantitative Software Engineering, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-25964-2_3 ↗
27. Choosing software metrics for defect prediction: an investigation on feature selection techniques10.1002/spe.1043 ↗
28. Ghotra, B., McIntosh, S., and Hassan, A.E. (2017, January 20–21). A Large-Scale Study of the Impact of Feature Selection Techniques on Defect Classification Models. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Buenos Aires, Argentina.10.1109/MSR.2017.18 ↗
29. Xu, Z., Liu, J., Yang, Z., An, G., and Jia, X. (2016, January 23–27). The Impact of Feature Selection on Defect Prediction Performance: An Empirical Comparison. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.1109/ISSRE.2016.13 ↗
30. Muthukumaran, K., Rallapalli, A., and Murthy, N. (2015, January 18–20). Impact of feature selection techniques on bug prediction models. Proceedings of the 8th India Software Engineering Conference, Bangalore, India.10.1145/2723742.2723754 ↗
31. Kondo, M., Bezemer, C.-P., Kamei, Y., Hassan, A.E., and Mizuno, O. (2019). The impact of feature reduction techniques on defect prediction models. Empir. Softw. Eng., 1–39.10.1007/s10664-018-9679-5 ↗
32. Rathore, S.S., and Gupta, A. (2014, January 19–21). A Comparative Study of Feature-Ranking and Feature-Subset Selection Techniques for Improved Fault Prediction. Proceedings of the 7th India Software Engineering Conference, Chennai, India.10.1145/2590748.2590755 ↗
33. A novel bagging C4. 5 algorithm based on wrapper feature selection for supporting wise clinical decision making10.1016/j.jbi.2017.11.005 ↗
34. Robust feature selection algorithm based on transductive SVM wrapper and genetic algorithm: application on computer-aided glaucoma classification
35. Rodriguez, D., Ruiz, R., Cuadrado-Gallego, J., Aguilar-Ruiz, J., and Garre, M. (2007, January 28–31). Attribute Selection in Software Engineering Datasets for Detecting Fault Modules. Proceedings of the 33rd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO 2007), Lubeck, Germany.10.1109/EUROMICRO.2007.20 ↗
36. A comparative performance evaluation of supervised feature selection algorithms on microarray datasets10.1016/j.procs.2017.09.127 ↗
37. Ibrahim, D.R., Ghnemat, R., and Hudaib, A. (2017, January 11–13). Software Defect Prediction using Feature Selection and Random Forest Algorithm. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on New Trends in Computing Sciences (ICTCS), Amman, Jordan.10.1109/ICTCS.2017.39 ↗
38. Data mining static code attributes to learn defect predictors10.1109/TSE.2007.256941 ↗
39. Data quality: Some comments on the nasa software defect datasets10.1109/TSE.2013.11 ↗
40. The class imbalance problem: A systematic study10.3233/IDA-2002-6504 ↗
41. The WEKA data mining software: an update10.1145/1656274.1656278 ↗
42. Balogun, A.O. (2019, May 09). SDP_FS_ComparativeStudy Git Repository. Available online: https://github.com/bharlow058/SDP_FS_ComparativeStudy.git.
43. A hybrid filter-wrapper feature selection method for DDoS detection in cloud computing10.3233/IDA-173624 ↗
44. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2 ↗
45. Predicting high-risk program modules by selecting the right software measurements10.1007/s11219-011-9132-0 ↗