Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction
-
Upload
promise07 -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.448 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction
![Page 1: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Slide 1
Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for
Improved Software Defect Prediction
Norman FentonMartin Neil, William Marsh, Peter Hearty and
Łukasz Radliński, Paul Krause
PROMISE
20 May 2007
![Page 2: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Slide 2
Overview
• Background
• The data
• Results
• Caveats
![Page 3: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Slide 3
Background
• Predicting reliability
• Statistical models
• Causal models
![Page 4: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Slide 4
Causal model (Bayesian network)
Probability offinding defect
Testingprocess
effectiveness
Testingprocessquality
Testingeffort
Testingstaff
experienceQuality of
documented test cases
Testingprocess
well-defined
![Page 5: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Slide 5
Background
• AID
• MODIST
![Page 6: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Slide 6
Schematic view of model
Existing codebase
Defectinsertion
and recovery
Testingand
rework
Designand
development
Specificationand
documentation
Commoninfluences Scale of
new requiredfunctionality
![Page 7: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Slide 8
Example question: “Relevant Experience of Spec & Doc Staff”
• Very High: Over 3 years experience in requirements management, and extensive domain knowledge.
• High: Over 3 years experience in requirements management, but limited domain knowledge.
• Medium: 1-3 years experience in requirements management.
• Low: 1-3 three years experience, but no experience in requirements management.
• Very Low: Less than one year’s experience, and no previous domain experience.
![Page 8: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Slide 9
How projects were selected
•Reliable Data
•Satisfactory end
•Key people available
•Breadth
•Depth
![Page 9: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Slide 10
Defects vs size
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 50 100 150 200
Code Size (KLoC)
Def
ects
Fo
un
d
![Page 10: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Slide 11
Actual versus predicted defects
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Actual
Pre
dic
ted
![Page 11: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Slide 12
Caveats
• Biased priors
• Structural aspects biased
• Data accuracy
• Projects overly ‘uniform’
![Page 12: Project Data Incorporating Qualitative Factors for Improved Software Defect Prediction](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022080211/55763e97d8b42ac31b8b472e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Slide 13
Conclusions
• No ‘data fitting’
• Dataset provided a validation
• Good predictions with few of the inputs
• Causal model provides genuine support for risk management