A Systematic Review of Unsupervised Learning Techniques for Software Defect Prediction

July 28, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Information and Software Technology

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ning Li, Martin Shepperd, Yuchen Guo arXiv ID 1907.12027 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 185 Venue Information and Software Technology Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Background: Unsupervised machine learners have been increasingly applied to software defect prediction. It is an approach that may be valuable for software practitioners because it reduces the need for labeled training data. Objective: Investigate the use and performance of unsupervised learning techniques in software defect prediction. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review that identified 49 studies containing 2456 individual experimental results, which satisfied our inclusion criteria published between January 2000 and March 2018. In order to compare prediction performance across these studies in a consistent way, we (re-)computed the confusion matrices and employed the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) as our main performance measure. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that unsupervised models are comparable with supervised models for both within-project and cross-project prediction. Among the 14 families of unsupervised model, Fuzzy CMeans (FCM) and Fuzzy SOMs (FSOMs) perform best. In addition, where we were able to check, we found that almost 11% (262/2456) of published results (contained in 16 papers) were internally inconsistent and a further 33% (823/2456) provided insufficient details for us to check. Conclusion: Although many factors impact the performance of a classifier, e.g., dataset characteristics, broadly speaking, unsupervised classifiers do not seem to perform worse than the supervised classifiers in our review. However, we note a worrying prevalence of (i) demonstrably erroneous experimental results, (ii) undemanding benchmarks and (iii) incomplete reporting. We therefore encourage researchers to be comprehensive in their reporting.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted