Heterogeneous Defect Prediction ( ESEC/FSE 2015)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•2,261 views
JC's FSE 2015 talk.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (13)
Similar to Heterogeneous Defect Prediction ( ESEC/FSE 2015)
Similar to Heterogeneous Defect Prediction ( ESEC/FSE 2015) (20)
More from Sung Kim
More from Sung Kim (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Heterogeneous Defect Prediction ( ESEC/FSE 2015)
- 1. Heterogeneous Defect Prediction ESEC/FSE 2015 September 3, 2015 Jaechang Nam and Sunghun Kim Department of Computer Science and Engineering HKUST
- 2. 2 Predict Training ? ? Model Project A : Metric value : Buggy-labeled instance : Clean-labeled instance ?: Unlabeled instance Software Defect Prediction Related Work Munson@TSE`92, Basili@TSE`95, Menzies@TSE`07, Hassan@ICSE`09, Bird@FSE`11,D’ambros@EMSE112 Lee@FSE`11,...
- 3. What if labeled instances do not exist? 3 ? ? ? ? ? Project X Unlabeled Dataset ?: Unlabeled instance : Metric value Model New projects Projects lacking in historical data
- 4. Existing Solutions? 4 ? ? ? ? ? (New) Project X Unlabeled Dataset ?: Unlabeled instance : Metric value
- 5. Cross-Project Defect Prediction (CPDP) 5 ? ? ? ? ? Training Predict Model Project A (source) Project X (target) Unlabeled Dataset : Metric value : Buggy-labeled instance : Clean-labeled instance ?: Unlabeled instance Related Work Watanabe@PROMISE`08, Turhan@EMSE`09 Zimmermann@FSE`09, Ma@IST`12, Zhang@MSR`14 Zhang@MSR`14, Panichella@WCRE`14, Canfora@STVR15 Challenge Same metric set (same feature space) • Heterogeneous metrics between source and target
- 6. Motivation 6 ? Training Test Model Project A (source) Project C (target) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Heterogeneous metric sets (different feature spaces or different domains) Possible to Reuse all the existing defect datasets for CPDP! Heterogeneous Defect Prediction (HDP)
- 7. Key Idea • Consistent defect-proneness tendency of metrics – Defect prediction metrics measure complexity of software and its development process. • e.g. – The number of developers touching a source code file (Bird@FSE`11) – The number of methods in a class (D’Ambroas@ESEJ`12) – The number of operands (Menzies@TSE`08) More complexity implies more defect-proneness (Rahman@ICSE`13) • Distributions between source and target should be the same to build a strong prediction model. 7 Match source and target metrics that have similar distribution
- 8. Heterogeneous Defect Prediction (HDP) - Overview - 8 X1 X2 X3 X4 Label 1 1 3 10 Buggy 8 0 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 0 1 1 Clean Metric Matching Source: Project A Target: Project B Cross- prediction Model Build (training) Predict (test) Metric Selection Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Label 3 1 1 0 2 1 9 ? 1 1 9 0 2 3 8 ? ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 ? 1 3 10 Buggy 8 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 1 1 Clean 1 3 10 Buggy 8 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 1 1 Clean 9 1 1 ? 8 3 9 ? ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 1 1 ?
- 9. Metric Selection • Why? (Guyon@JMLR`03) – Select informative metrics • Remove redundant and irrelevant metrics – Decrease complexity of metric matching combination • Feature Selection Approaches (Gao@SPE`11,Shivaji@TSE`13) – Gain Ratio – Chi-square – Relief-F – Significance attribute evaluation 9
- 10. Metric Matching 10 Source Metrics Target Metrics X1 X2 Y1 Y2 0.8 0.5 * We can apply different cutoff values of matching score * It can be possible that there is no matching at all.
- 11. Compute Matching Score KSAnalyzer • Use p-value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (Massey@JASA`51) 11 Matching Score M of i-th source and j-th target metrics: Mij = pij
- 12. Heterogeneous Defect Prediction - Overview - 12 X1 X2 X3 X4 Label 1 1 3 10 Buggy 8 0 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 0 1 1 Clean Metric Matching Source: Project A Target: Project B Cross- prediction Model Build (training) Predict (test) Metric Selection Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Label 3 1 1 0 2 1 9 ? 1 1 9 0 2 3 8 ? ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 ? 1 3 10 Buggy 8 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 1 1 Clean 1 3 10 Buggy 8 1 0 Clean ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 9 1 1 Clean 9 1 1 ? 8 3 9 ? ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 1 1 ?
- 13. EVALUATION 13
- 14. Baselines • WPDP • CPDP-CM (Turhan@EMSE`09,Ma@IST`12,He@IST`14) – Cross-project defect prediction using only common metrics between source and target datasets • CPDP-IFS (He@CoRR`14) – Cross-project defect prediction on Imbalanced Feature Set (i.e. heterogeneous metric set) – 16 distributional characteristics of values of an instance as features (e.g., mean, std, maximum,...) 14
- 15. Research Questions (RQs) • RQ1 – Is heterogeneous defect prediction comparable to WPDP? • RQ2 – Is heterogeneous defect prediction comparable to CPDP-CM? • RQ3 – Is Heterogeneous defect prediction comparable to CPDP-IFS? 15
- 16. Benchmark Datasets Group Dataset # of instances # of metrics Granularity All Buggy (%) AEEEM EQ 325 129 (39.7%) 61 Class JDT 997 206 (20.7%) LC 399 64 (9.36%) ML 1862 245 (13.2%) PDE 1492 209 (14.0%) MORP H ant-1.3 125 20 (16.0%) 20 Class arc 234 27 (11.5%) camel-1.0 339 13 (3.8%) poi-1.5 237 141 (75.0%) redaktor 176 27 (15.3%) skarbonka 45 9 (20.0%) tomcat 858 77 (9.0%) velocity-1.4 196 147 (75.0%) xalan-2.4 723 110 (15.2%) xerces-1.2 440 71 (16.1%) 16 Group Dataset # of instances # of metrics Granularity All Buggy (%) ReLink Apache 194 98 (50.5%) 26 FileSafe 56 22 (39.3%) ZXing 399 118 (29.6%) NASA cm1 327 42 (12.8%) 37 Function mw1 253 27 (10.7%) pc1 705 61 (8.7%) pc3 1077 134 (12.4%) pc4 1458 178 (12.2%) SOFTLA B ar1 121 9 (7.4%) 29 Function ar3 63 8 (12.7%) ar4 107 20 (18.7%) ar5 36 8 (22.2%) ar6 101 15 (14.9%) 600 prediction combinations in total!
- 17. Experimental Settings • Logistic Regression • HDP vs. WPDP, CPDP-CM, and CPDP-IFS 17 Test set (50%) Training set (50%) Project 1 Project 2 Project n ... ... X 1000 Project 1 Project 2 Project n ... ... CPDP-CM CPDP-IFS HDP WPDP Project A
- 18. Evaluation Measures • False Positive Rate = FP/(TN+FP) • True Positive Rate = Recall • AUC (Area Under receiver operating characteristic Curve) 18 False Positive rate TruePositiverate 0 1 1
- 19. Evaluation Measures • Win/Tie/Loss (Valentini@ICML`03, Li@JASE`12, Kocaguneli@TSE`13) – Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p<0.05) for 1000 prediction results – Win • # of outperforming HDP prediction combinations with statistical significance. (p<0.05) – Tie • # of HDP prediction combinations with no statistical significance. (p≥0.05) – Loss • # of outperforming baseline prediction results with statistical significance. (p>0.05) 19
- 20. RESULT 20
- 21. Prediction Results in median AUC Target WPDP CPDP- CM CPDP- IFS HDPKS (cutoff =0.05) EQ 0.583 0.776 0.461 0.783 JDT 0.795 0.781 0.543 0.767 MC 0.575 0.636 0.584 0.655 ML 0.734 0.651 0.557 0.692* PDE 0.684 0.682 0.566 0.717 ant-1.3 0.670 0.611 0.500 0.701 arc 0.670 0.611 0.523 0.701 camel-1.0 0.550 0.590 0.500 0.639 poi-1.5 0.707 0.676 0.606 0.537 redaktor 0.744 0.500 0.500 0.537 skarbonka 0.569 0.736 0.528 0.694* tomcat 0.778 0.746 0.640 0.818 velocity- 1.4 0.725 0.609 0.500 0.391 xalan-2.4 0.755 0.658 0.499 0.751 xerces-1.2 0.624 0.453 0.500 0.489 21 Target WPDP CPDP- CM CPDP- IFS HDPKS (cutoff =0.05) Apache 0.714 0.689 0.635 0.717* Safe 0.706 0.749 0.616 0.818* ZXing 0.605 0.619 0.530 0.650* cm1 0.653 0.622 0.551 0.717* mw1 0.612 0.584 0.614 0.727 pc1 0.787 0.675 0.564 0.752* pc3 0.794 0.665 0.500 0.738* pc4 0.900 0.773 0.589 0.682* ar1 0.582 0.464 0.500 0.734* ar3 0.574 0.862 0.682 0.823* ar4 0.657 0.588 0.575 0.816* ar5 0.804 0.875 0.585 0.911* ar6 0.654 0.611 0.527 0.640 All 0.657 0.636 0.555 0.724* HDPKS: Heterogeneous defect prediction using KSAnalyzer
- 22. Win/Tie/Loss Results Target Against WPDP Against CPDP-CM Against CPDP-IFS W T L W T L W T L EQ 4 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 JDT 0 0 5 3 0 2 5 0 0 LC 6 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 ML 0 0 6 4 2 0 6 0 0 PDE 3 0 2 2 0 3 5 0 0 ant-1.3 6 0 1 6 0 1 5 0 2 arc 3 1 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 camel-1.0 3 0 2 3 0 2 4 0 1 poi-1.5 2 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 2 redaktor 0 0 4 2 0 2 3 0 1 skarbonka 11 0 0 4 0 7 9 0 2 tomcat 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 velocity- 1.4 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 xalan-2.4 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 xerces-1.2 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 2 22 Target Against WPDP Against CPDP-CM Against CPDP-IFS W T L W T L W T L Apach e 6 0 5 8 1 2 9 0 2 Safe 14 0 3 12 0 5 15 0 2 ZXing 8 0 0 6 0 2 7 0 1 cm1 7 1 2 8 0 2 9 0 1 mw1 5 0 1 4 0 2 4 0 2 pc1 1 0 5 5 0 1 6 0 0 pc3 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 0 0 pc4 0 0 7 2 0 5 7 0 0 ar1 14 0 1 14 0 1 11 0 4 ar3 15 0 0 5 0 10 10 2 3 ar4 16 0 0 14 1 1 15 0 1 ar5 14 0 4 14 0 4 16 0 2 ar6 7 1 7 8 4 3 12 0 3 Total 147 3 72 147 14 61 182 3 35 % 66.2 % 1.4% 32.4 % 66.2 % 6.3% 27.5 % 82.0 % 1.3% 16.7 %
- 23. Matched Metrics (Win) 23 MetricValues Distribution (Source metric: RFC-the number of method invoked by a class, Target metric: the number of operand Matching Score = 0.91 AUC = 0.946 (ant1.3 ar5)
- 24. Matched Metrics (Loss) 24 MetricValues Distribution (Source metric: LOC, Target metric: average number of LOC in a method) Matching Score = 0.13 AUC = 0.391 (Safe velocity-1.4)
- 25. Different Feature Selections (median AUCs, Win/Tie/Loss) 25 Approach Against WPDP Against CPDP-CM Against CPDP-IFS HDP AUC Win% AUC Win% AUC Win% AUC Gain Ratio 0.657 63.7% 0.645 63.2% 0.536 80.2% 0.720 Chi-Square 0.657 64.7% 0.651 66.4% 0.556 82.3% 0.727 Significanc e 0.657 66.2% 0.636 66.2% 0.553 82.0% 0.724 Relief-F 0.670 57.0% 0.657 63.1% 0.543 80.5% 0.709 None 0.657 47.3% 0.624 50.3% 0.536 66.3% 0.663
- 26. Results in Different Cutoffs 26 Cutoff Against WPDP Against CPDP-CM Against CPDP-IFS HDP Target Coverage AUC Win% AUC Win% AUC Win% AUC 0.05 0.657 66.2% 0.636 66.2% 0.553 82.4% 0.724* 100% 0.90 0.657 100% 0.761 71.4% 0.624 100% 0.852* 21%
- 27. Conclusion • HDP – Potential for CPDP across datasets with different metric sets. • Future work – Filtering out noisy metric matching – Determine the best probability threshold 27
Editor's Notes
- Oggioni Room 17 PM (Session in 16:30 – 18:00)
- Here is Project A and some software entities. Let say these entities are source code files. I want to predict whether these files are buggy or clean. To do this, we need a prediction model. Since defect prediction models are trained by machine learning algorithms, we need labeled instances collected from previous releases. This is an labeled instance. An instance consists of features and labels. Various software metrics such as LoC, # of functions in a file, and # of authors touching a source file, are used as features for machine learning. Software metrics measure complexity of software and its development process Each instance can be labeled by past bug information. Software metrics and past bug information can be collected from software archives such as version control systems and bug report systems. With these labeled instances, we can build a prediction model and predict the unlabeled instances. This prediction is conducted within the same project. So, we call this Within-project defect prediction (WPDP). There are many studies about WPDP and showed good prediction performance. ( like prediction accuracy is 0.7.)
- What if there are no labeled instances. This can happen in new projects and projects lacking in historical data. New projects do not have past defect information to label instances. Some projects also does not have defect information because of lacking in historical data from software archives. When I participated in an industrial project for Samsung electronics, it was really difficult to generate labeled instances because their software archives are not well managed by developers. So, in some real industrial projects, we may not generate labeled instances to build a prediction model. Without labeled instances, we can not build a prediction model. After experiencing this limitation form the industry, I decided to address this problem.
- There are existing solutions to build a prediction model for unlabeled datasets. The first solution is cross-project defect prediction. We can reuse labeled instances from other projects.
- Various feature selection approaches can be applied
- By doing that, we can investigate how higher matching scores can impact defect prediction performance.
- 16 distribution characteristics: mode, median, mean, harmonic mean, minimum, maximum, range, variation ratio, first quartile, third quartile, interquartile range, vari- ance, standard deviation, coefficient of variance, skewness, and kurtosis
- AEEEM: object- oriented (OO) metrics, previous-defect metrics, entropy met- rics of change and code, and churn-of-source-code metrics [4]. MORPH: McCabe’s cyclomatic metrics, CK metrics, and other OO metrics [36]. ReLink: code complexity metrics NASA: Halstead metrics and McCabe’s cyclomatic metrics, additional complexity metrics such as parameter count and percentage of comments SOFTLAB: Halstead metrics and McCabe’s cyclomatic metrics
- all 222 prediction combinations among 600 predictions