Software Defect Prediction through Neural Network and Feature Selections. (26th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alkhasawneh, Mutasem Shabeb
• Other Names: Ramachandran Manikandan Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: Applied computational intelligence and soft computing. Volume 2022(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-09-26
• Subjects: Computational intelligence -- Periodicals; Soft computing -- Periodicals; 006.305
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/2581832
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1687-9724

Abstract

Abstract : Software failure such as software defect causes billion of dollar loss every year. Software failure also affects billion of people worldwide. Inadequate software testing can cause software failure. To predict the software defect, this study proposed a model consisting of feature selection and classifications. The correlation base method was used for feature selection, and radial base function neural network (RBF) was used for classification. Also, for testing the proposed system, fourteen NASA data sets were used including CM1, JM1, KC1, KC2, KC3, KC4, MC1, MC2, MW1, PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and PC5. The data set was divided using the well-known K-cross-validation methods which were performed to divide the data set for training and testing the RBF. The RBF were trained and tested before and after feature selections. Precision, recall, F -measure, and accuracy are four methods used to evaluate the performance of the proposed methods. The precision obtained for the fourteen data sets was CM1, 94.01%; JM1, 85.18%; KC1, 83.24%; KC2, 81.27%; KC3, 79.30%; KC4, 85.29%; MC1, 99.89%; MC2, 73.27%; MW1, 90.90%; PC1, 98.79%; PC2, 100%; PC3, 95.67%; PC4, 95.12%; and PC5, 80.89%. Recall was as follows: CM1, 95.78%; JM1, 87.89%; KC1, 86.24%; KC2, 83.82%; KC3, 82.10%; KC4, 86.28%; MC1, 100%; MC2, 76.67%; MW1, 92.09%; PC1, 99.98%; PC2, 100%; PC3, 96.23%; PC4, 95.17%; and PC5, 81.80%. F -measure was as follows: CM1, 0.95; JM1, 0.87; KC1, 0.83; KC2, 0.82; KC3, 0.85; KC4, 0.86; MC1, 0.99; MC2, 0.76; MW1, 0.95; PC1, 0.99; PC2, 0.99; PC3, 0.97; PC4, 0.95; and PC5, 0.80. The accuracy obtained was as follows: CM1, 93.99%; JM1, 84.87%; KC1, 83.25%; KC2, 79.11%; KC3, 78.25%; KC4, 83.18%; MC1, 99.01%; MC2, 70.18%; MW1, 88.90%; PC1, 98.99%; PC2, 99.80%; PC3, 94.11%; PC4, 94.4%; and PC5, 79.02%. The proposed method results were compared with the result obtained from different methods. The proposed model obtained better results than other methods for data set CM1, KC4, MC1, PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, and PC5.