Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669467›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Enhancing software defect prediction: a framework with improved feature selection and ensemble machine learning.

Misbah Ali, Tehseen Mazhar, Amal Al-Rasheed, Tariq Shahzad, Yazeed Yasin Ghadi, Muhammad Amir Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Misbah Ali *Department of Computer Science & Information Technology, Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan.
Tehseen Mazhar *Department of Computer Science & Information Technology, Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan.
Amal Al-RasheedDepartment of Information Systems, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Tariq ShahzadDepartment of Computer Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal, Pakistan.
Yazeed Yasin GhadiDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Al Ain University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Muhammad Amir KhanSchool of Computing Sciences, College of Computing, Informatics and Mathematics, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective software defect prediction is a crucial aspect of software quality assurance, enabling the identification of defective modules before the testing phase. This study aims to propose a comprehensive five-stage framework for software defect prediction, addressing the current challenges in the field. The first stage involves selecting a cleaned version of NASA's defect datasets, including CM1, JM1, MC2, MW1, PC1, PC3, and PC4, ensuring the data's integrity. In the second stage, a feature selection technique based on the genetic algorithm is applied to identify the optimal subset of features. In the third stage, three heterogeneous binary classifiers, namely random forest, support vector machine, and naïve Bayes, are implemented as base classifiers. Through iterative tuning, the classifiers are optimized to achieve the highest level of accuracy individually. In the fourth stage, an ensemble machine-learning technique known as voting is applied as a master classifier, leveraging the collective decision-making power of the base classifiers. The final stage evaluates the performance of the proposed framework using five widely recognized performance evaluation measures: precision, recall, accuracy, F-measure, and area under the curve. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art ensemble and base classifiers employed in software defect prediction and achieves a maximum accuracy of 95.1%, showing its effectiveness in accurately identifying software defects. The framework also evaluates its efficiency by calculating execution times. Notably, it exhibits enhanced efficiency, significantly reducing the execution times during the training and testing phases by an average of 51.52% and 52.31%, respectively. This reduction contributes to a more computationally economical solution for accurate software defect prediction.

Indexed as

AIDeep learningEnsembleFeatures selectionsMachine learningNBQualityRNSoftware defect predicationSVM

Identifiers

PMID39669467
PMCPMC11636684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.