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.

On effort-aware metrics for defect prediction

Improving Classifier-Based Effort-Aware Software Defect Prediction by Reducing Ranking Errors

Finding the best learning to rank algorithms for effort-aware defect prediction

Effort-Aware semi-Supervised just-in-Time defect prediction

Empirical Analysis of Network Measures for Effort-Aware Fault-Proneness Prediction

Combined Classifier for Cross-Project Defect Prediction: an Extended Empirical Study.

A Compositional Model for Cross-Project Effort-Aware Defect Prediction

Bridging Effort-Aware Prediction and Strong Classification

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

Effort-aware and just-in-time defect prediction with neural network

EFSPredictor: Predicting Configuration Bugs with Ensemble Feature Selection.

A Differential Evolution-Based Approach for Effort-Aware Just-in-time Software Defect Prediction

Towards Developing and Analysing Metric-Based Software Defect Severity Prediction Model

DEJIT: A Differential Evolution Algorithm for Effort-Aware Just-in-Time Software Defect Prediction

Toward a consistent performance evaluation for defect prediction models

Benchmarking cross-project defect prediction approaches with costs metrics

Perceptions, Expectations, and Challenges in Defect Prediction.

Effort-Aware Tri-Training for Semi-supervised Just-in-Time Defect Prediction.

Studying the effectiveness of deep active learning in software defect prediction

Process Metrics for Software Defect Prediction in Object-Oriented Programs

Predicting defects in object-oriented software using cost-sensitive classification