Investigating Defect Prediction Models for Iterative Software Development When Phase Data is Not Recorded - Lessons Learned

Anıl Aydın, Ayça Tarhan

2014

Abstract

One of the biggest problems that software organizations encounter is specifying the resources required and the duration of projects. Organizations that record the number of defects and the effort spent on fixing these defects are able to correctly predict the latent defects in the product and the effort required to remove these latent defects. The use of reliability models reported in the literature is typical to achieve this prediction, but the number of studies that report defect prediction models for iterative software development is scarce. In this article we present a case study which predicts the defectiveness of new releases in an iterative, civil project where defect arrival phase data is not recorded. We investigated Linear Regression Model and Rayleigh Model one of the statistical reliability model that contain time information, to predict the module level and project level defectiveness of the new releases of an iterative project through the iterations. The models were created by using 29 successive releases for the project level and 15 successive releases for the module level defect density data. This article explains the procedures that were applied to generate the defectiveness models and the lessons learned from the studies.

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Moser, R., Pedrycz, W., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (2007, September). Effort prediction in iterative software development processes-incremental versus global prediction models. In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2007. ESEM 2007. First International Symposium on (pp. 344- 353). IEEE.
  2. Bäumer, M., Seidler, P., Torkar, R., Feldt, R., Tomaszewski, P., & Damm, L. O. (2008). Predicting fault inflow in highly iterative software development processes: an industrial evaluation. In Supplementary CD-ROM Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering: Industry Track.
  3. Eumetcal. (2011). Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) Retrieved September 23, 2013, from http://www.eumetcal.org/resources/ukmeteocal/- verification/www/english/msg/ver cont var/- uos3/uos3 ko1.htm
  4. Hong, Y., Baik, J., Ko, I. Y., & Choi, H. J. (2008, May). A Value-Added Predictive Defect Type Distribution Model based on Project Characteristics. In Computer and Information Science, 2008. ICIS 08. Seventh IEEE/ACIS International Conference on (pp. 469-474). IEEE.
  5. Jiang, T., Tan, L., & Kim, S. (2013). Personalized defect prediction. In Proceedings of the 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2013). Palo Alto, CA, November 11-15, 2013.
  6. Jones, C. (2004). Software project management practices: Failure versus success. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 5-9.
  7. Jones, C. (2006). Social and technical reasons for software project failures. STSC CrossTalk June.
  8. Kan, S. H. (2002). Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering (2nd ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
  9. Kitchenham, B. A., Pickard, L. M., MacDonell, S. G., & Shepperd, M. J. (2001, June). What accuracy statistics really measure [software estimation]. In Software, IEE Proceedings- (Vol. 148, No. 3, pp. 81-85). IET.
  10. Koru, A. G., & Liu, H. (2005). Building effective defectprediction models in practice. Software, IEEE, 22(6), 23-29.
  11. Laird L.(2006). In Praise of Defects Stevens Institute of Technology. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://www.njspin.org/present/Linda%20Laird%20March%202005.pdf
  12. Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental developments. a brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47-56.
  13. Linear regression. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear regression
  14. Madachy, R., Boehm, B., & Houston, D. (2010). Modeling Software Defect Dynamics. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/2010/usccsse-2010-509/usc-csse-2010-509.pdf
  15. Powell, J. D., & Spanguolo, J. N. (2003). Modeling defect trends for iterative development.
  16. Qian, L., Yao, Q., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2010). Dynamic Two-phase Truncated Rayleigh Model for Release Date Prediction of Software. JSEA, 3(6), 603- 609.
  17. Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131- 164.
  18. Simple linear regression. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple linear regression
  19. Standish Group. (2009). Standish group chaos report Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.standishgroup.com
  20. Tarhan, A., & Demirörs, O. (2012). Apply Quantitative Management Now. IEEE Software, 29(3), 77-85.
  21. Vladu, A. M., Iliescu, S. S., & Fagarasan, I. (2011, May). Product defect prediction model. In Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI), 2011 6th IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 499-504). IEEE.
  22. Wahyudin, D., Ramler, R., & Biffl, S. (2011). A framework for defect prediction in specific software project contexts. In Software Engineering Techniques (pp. 261-274). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  23. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: SAGE Publications.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Aydın A. and Tarhan A. (2014). Investigating Defect Prediction Models for Iterative Software Development When Phase Data is Not Recorded - Lessons Learned . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-758-030-7, pages 48-58. DOI: 10.5220/0004888300480058


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase14,
author={Anıl Aydın and Ayça Tarhan},
title={Investigating Defect Prediction Models for Iterative Software Development When Phase Data is Not Recorded - Lessons Learned},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2014},
pages={48-58},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004888300480058},
isbn={978-989-758-030-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - Investigating Defect Prediction Models for Iterative Software Development When Phase Data is Not Recorded - Lessons Learned
SN - 978-989-758-030-7
AU - Aydın A.
AU - Tarhan A.
PY - 2014
SP - 48
EP - 58
DO - 10.5220/0004888300480058