Abstract:Abstract Effort‐Aware Defect Prediction (EADP) methods sort software modules based on the defect density and guide the testing team to inspect the modules with high defect density first. Previous studies indicated that some feature selection methods could improve the performance of Classification‐Based Defect Prediction (CBDP) models, and the Correlation‐based feature subset selection method with the Best First strategy (CorBF) performed the best. However, the practical benefits of feature selection methods on EADP performance are still unknown, and blindly employing the best‐performing CorBF method in CBDP to pre‐process the defect datasets may not improve the performance of EADP models but possibly result in performance degradation. To assess the impact of the feature selection techniques on EADP, a total of 24 feature selection methods with 10 classifiers embedded in a state‐of‐the‐art EADP model (CBS+) on the 41 PROMISE defect datasets were examined. We employ six evaluation metrics to assess the performance of EADP models comprehensively. The results show that (1) The impact of the feature selection methods varies in classifiers and datasets. (2) The four wrapper‐based feature subset selection methods with forwards search, that is, AdaBoost with Forwards Search, Deep Forest with Forwards Search, Random Forest with Forwards Search, and XGBoost with Forwards Search (XGBF) are better than other methods across the studied classifiers and the used datasets. And XGBF with XGBoost as the embedded classifier in CBS+ performs the best on the datasets. (3) The best‐performing CorBF method in CBDP does not perform well on the EADP task. (4) The selected features vary with different feature selection methods and different datasets, and the features noc (number of children), ic (inheritance coupling), cbo (coupling between object classes), and cbm (coupling between methods) are frequently selected by the four wrapper‐based feature subset selection methods with forwards search. (5) Using AdaBoost, deep forest, random forest, and XGBoost as the base classifiers embedded in CBS+ can achieve the best performance. In summary, we recommend the software testing team should employ XGBF with XGBoost as the embedded classifier in CBS+ to enhance the EADP performance.

Predicting the Severity of Bug Reports Based on Feature Selection.

EFSPredictor: Predicting Configuration Bugs with Ensemble Feature Selection.

Automatic Defect Categorization Based on Fault Triggering Conditions

Automated Configuration Bug Report Prediction Using Text Mining.

Automatic, High Accuracy Prediction of Reopened Bugs

Automated Bug Report Field Reassignment and Refinement Prediction

Exploring the Influence of Feature Selection Techniques on Bug Report Prioritization

A Noise Tolerable Feature Selection Framework for Software Defect Prediction

High-Impact Bug Report Identification with Imbalanced Learning Strategies

An empirical analysis of feature selection techniques for Software Defect Prediction

Automated Identification of High Impact Bug Reports Leveraging Imbalanced Learning Strategies

An Empirical Study on Bug Severity Estimation using Source Code Metrics and Static Analysis

A Comparative Study of Supervised Learning Algorithms for Re-opened Bug Prediction.

Improving high-impact bug report prediction with combination of interactive machine learning and active learning

The Impact of Feature Selection Techniques on Effort-Aware Defect Prediction: an Empirical Study.

Empirical studies on feature selection for software fault prediction

Ensemble Data Reduction Techniques and Multi-RSMOTE via Fuzzy Integral for Bug Report Classification

Method-Level Bug Severity Prediction using Source Code Metrics and LLMs

Bug Report Priority Prediction Using Developer-Oriented Socio-Technical Features

FECS: A Cluster Based Feature Selection Method for Software Fault Prediction with Noises

A Machine Learning Approach for Classifying the Default Bug Severity Level