Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Software Quality Prediction

被引:18
|
作者
Goyal, Somya [1 ]
机构
[1] Manipal Univ Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
关键词
Area Under the Curve (AUC); Artificial Neural Network (ANN); Classification Tree; Fault Prediction; KNN; Machine Learning (ML); Naive-Bayes; Receiver Operator Curve (ROC); Software Quality; Support Vector Machine (SVM); DEFECT PREDICTION; METRICS; MODELS;
D O I
10.4018/IJKSS.2020040102
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; O22 [运筹学];
学科分类号
070105 ; 12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Software quality prediction is one the most challenging tasks in the development and maintenance of software. Machine learning (ML) is widely being incorporated for the prediction of the quality of a final product in the early development stages of the software development life cycle (SDLC). An ML prediction model uses software metrics and faulty data from previous projects to detect high-risk modules for future projects, so that the testing efforts can be targeted to those specific 'risky' modules. Hence, ML-based predictors contribute to the detection of development anomalies early and inexpensively and ensure the timely delivery of a successful, failure-free and supreme quality software product within budget. This article has a comparison of 30 software quality prediction models (5 technique * 6 dataset) built on five ML techniques: artificial neural network (ANN); support vector machine (SVMs); Decision Tree (DTs); k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN); and Naive Bayes Classifiers (NBC), using six datasets: CM1, KC1, KC2, PC1, JM1, and a combined one. These models exploit the predictive power of static code metrics, McCabe complexity metrics, for quality prediction. All thirty predictors are compared using a receiver operator curve (ROC), area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy as performance evaluation criteria. The results show that the ANN technique for software quality prediction is promising for accurate quality prediction irrespective of the dataset used.
引用
收藏
页码:20 / 40
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A survey on machine learning techniques used for software quality prediction
    Pattnaik S.
    Pattanayak B.K.
    International Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems, 2016, 8 (1-2) : 3 - 14
  • [2] Software quality prediction using machine learning
    Alaswad, Feisal
    Poovammal, E.
    MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS, 2022, 62 : 4714 - 4720
  • [3] Software Quality Prediction Using Machine Learning
    Desai, Bhoushika
    Sungkur, Roopesh Kevin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE INNOVATION, 2022, 10 (01)
  • [4] Software Quality Prediction Using Machine Learning
    Desai, Bhoushika
    Sungkur, Roopesh Kevin
    6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMART CITY APPLICATIONS, 2022, 393 : 401 - 411
  • [5] Scientific programming using optimized machine learning techniques for software fault prediction to improve software quality
    Shafiq, Muhammad
    Alghamedy, Fatemah H.
    Jamal, Nasir
    Kamal, Tahir
    Daradkeh, Yousef Ibrahim
    Shabaz, Mohammad
    IET SOFTWARE, 2023, 17 (04) : 694 - 704
  • [6] Software reliability prediction using machine learning techniques
    Jaiswal A.
    Malhotra R.
    International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2018, 9 (1) : 230 - 244
  • [7] Machine learning techniques for software testing effort prediction
    Lopez-Martin, Cuauhtemoc
    SOFTWARE QUALITY JOURNAL, 2022, 30 (01) : 65 - 100
  • [8] Machine learning techniques for software testing effort prediction
    Cuauhtémoc López-Martín
    Software Quality Journal, 2022, 30 : 65 - 100
  • [9] Prediction of Quality of Service Parameters Using Aggregate Software Metrics and Machine Learning Techniques
    Tripathi, Manish K.
    Chaubisa, Divyanshu
    Kumar, Lov
    Neti, Lalita Bhanu Murthy
    IEEE INDICON: 15TH IEEE INDIA COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 2018,
  • [10] Software Quality Prediction: An Investigation based on Machine Learning
    Reddivari, Sandeep
    Raman, Jayalakshmi
    2019 IEEE 20TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION REUSE AND INTEGRATION FOR DATA SCIENCE (IRI 2019), 2019, : 115 - 122