Software Defect Classification: A Comparative Study of Rough-Neuro-fuzzy Hybrid Approaches with Linear and Non-linear SVMs
This chapter is an extension of our earlier work in combining and comparing rough hybrid approaches with neuro-fuzzy and partial decision trees in classifying software defect data. The extension includes a comparison of our earlier results with linear and non-linear support vector machines (SVMs) in classifying defects. We compare SVM classification results with partial decision trees, neuro-fuzzy decision trees(NFDT), LEM2 algorithm based on rough sets, rough-neuro-fuzzy decision trees(R-NFDT), and fuzzy-rough classification trees(FRCT). The analyses of the results include statistical tests for classification accuracy. The experiments were aimed at not only comparing classification accuracy, but also collecting other useful software quality indicators such as number of rules, number of attributes (metrics) and the type of metrics (design vs. code level). The contribution of this chapter is a comprehensive comparative study of several computational intelligence methods in classifying software defect data. The different methods also point to the type of metrics data that ought to be collected and whether the rules generated by these methods can be easily interpreted.
KeywordsClassification fuzzy-rough classification trees neuro-fuzzy decision trees rough sets software defects support vector machines
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bhatt, R.B.: Fuzzy-Rough Approach to Pattern Classification- Hybrid Algorithms and Optimization, Ph.D. Dissertation, Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Bhatt, R.B., Gopal, M.: Induction of Weighted and Interpretable Fuzzy Classification Rules for Medical Informatics. International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics 3(1), 20–26 (2006)Google Scholar
- 12.Hsu, C.W., Lin, C.J.: A Comparison on methods for multi-class support vector methods, Technical report, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B.: Neural networks for software quality prediction. In: Pedrycz, W., Peters, J.F. (eds.) Computational Intelligence in Software Engineering, pp. 33–63. World Scientific, River Edge (1998)Google Scholar
- 14.MATLAB User’s Guide. The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA 01760 (1994-2007)Google Scholar
- 16.Nguyen, H.S., Nguyen, S.H.: Discretization methods in data mining. In: Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1, pp. 451–482. Physica-Verlag, Berlin (1998a)Google Scholar
- 19.Peters, J.F., Pedrycz, W.: Software Engineering: An Engineering Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2000)Google Scholar
- 23.Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1(1), 81–106 (1986)Google Scholar
- 25.Quinlan, J.R.: C.4.5 Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kauffmann, San Mateo (1993)Google Scholar
- 27.Gryzmala-Busse, J.W.: A New Version of the Rule Induction System LERS. Fundamenta Informaticae 31(1), 27–39 (1997)Google Scholar
- 29.Yuan, X., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Ganesan, K.: An application of fuzzy clustering to software quality prediction. In: Proc. 3rd IEEE Symp. on Application-Specific Software Engineering Technology, pp. 85–90 (2000)Google Scholar