An empirical evaluation of ensemble adjustment methods for analogy-based effort estimation

被引:69
作者
Azzeh, Mohammad [1 ]
Nassif, Ali Bou [2 ]
Minku, Leandro L. [3 ]
机构
[1] Appl Sci Univ, Dept Software Engn, Amman 166, Jordan
[2] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
[3] Univ Birmingham, Sch Comp Sci, Off 244, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Ensemble learning; Analogy based estimation; Adjustment methods; SOFTWARE EFFORT ESTIMATION; COST ESTIMATION; ADAPTATION TECHNIQUES; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jss.2015.01.028
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Context: Effort adjustment is an essential part of analogy-based effort estimation, used to tune and adapt nearest analogies in order to produce more accurate estimations. Currently, there are plenty of adjustment methods proposed in literature, but there is no consensus on which method produces more accurate estimates and under which settings. Objective: This paper investigates the potential of ensemble learning for variants of adjustment methods used in analogy-based effort estimation. The number k of analogies to be used is also investigated. Method: We perform a large scale comparison study where many ensembles constructed from n out of 40 possible valid variants of adjustment methods are applied to eight datasets. The performance of each method was evaluated based on standardized accuracy and effect size. Results: The results have been subjected to statistical significance testing, and show reasonable significant improvements on the predictive performance where ensemble methods are applied. Conclusion: Our conclusions suggest that ensembles of adjustment methods can work well and achieve good performance, even though they are not always superior to single methods. We also recommend constructing ensembles from only linear adjustment methods, as they have shown better performance and were frequently ranked higher. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:36 / 52
页数:17
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Alpaydin E., 1998, Proceedings of Engineering of Intelligent Systems, V2, P6
[2]   A simulation tool for efficient analogy based cost estimation [J].
Angelis L. ;
Stamelos I. .
Empirical Software Engineering, 2000, 5 (1) :35-68
[3]   Optimal project feature weights in analogy-based cost estimation: Improvement and limitations [J].
Auer, M ;
Trendowicz, A ;
Graser, B ;
Haunschmid, E ;
Biffl, S .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2006, 32 (02) :83-92
[4]  
Azhar Damir, 2013, 2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), P173, DOI 10.1109/ESEM.2013.25
[5]  
Azzeh M., 2012, 7 INT C SOFTW ENG AD, P341
[6]  
Azzeh M., 2011, 11 IEEE INT C COMP I, P328
[7]   A replicated assessment and comparison of adaptation techniques for analogy-based effort estimation [J].
Azzeh, Mohammad .
EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2012, 17 (1-2) :90-127
[8]   An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants [J].
Bauer, E ;
Kohavi, R .
MACHINE LEARNING, 1999, 36 (1-2) :105-139
[9]  
Boehm B., 1981, Software Engineering Economics
[10]   Bagging predictors for estimation of software project effort [J].
Braga, Petronio L. ;
Oliveira, Adriano L. I. ;
Ribeiro, Gustavo H. T. ;
Meira, Silvio R. L. .
2007 IEEE INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOLS 1-6, 2007, :1595-+