Application of Locally Weighted Regression for Predicting Faults Using Software Entropy Metrics

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 379)

Abstract

There are numerous approaches for predicting faults in the software engineering research field. Software entropy metrics introduced by Hassan (Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes, 78–88, 2009) [1] are also popularly used for fault prediction. In previous studies, statistical linear regression (SLR) and support vector regression (SVR) for predicting faults using software entropy metrics have been validated. However, other machine learning approaches have not yet been explored. This study explores the applicability of locally weighted regression (LWR) approach for predicting faults using the software entropy metrics and compares it with SVR. It is noticed that the LWR performs better than SVR in most of the cases.

Keywords

Software fault prediction Locally weighted regression Software entropy 

References

  1. 1.
    Hassan, A.E.: Predicting faults using the complexity of code changes. In: 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 78–88. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M., Robbes, R.: Evaluating defect prediction approaches: a benchmark and an extensive comparison. Empirical Softw. Eng. 17(4–5), 531–577 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh, V.B., Chaturvedi, K.K.: Entropy based bug prediction using support vector regression. In: ISDA, pp. 746–751 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkeson, C.G., Moore, A.W., Schaal, S.A.: Locally weighted learning. AI Rev. 11, 75–113 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11(1), 10–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shevade, S.K., Keerthi, S.S., Bhattacharyya, C., Murthy, K.R.K.: Improvements to the SMO algorithm for SVM regression. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 11(5), 1188–1193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Witten, I.H., Eibe, F.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M., Robbes, R.: An extensive comparison of bug prediction approaches. In: 7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp. 31–41. IEEE (2010) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University School of Information and Communication Technology (U.S.I.C.T), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (G.G.S.I.P.U.)New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations