File-level defect prediction: Unsupervised vs. supervised models
Background: Software defect models can help software quality assurance teams to allocate testing or code review resources. A variety of techniques have been used to build defect prediction models, including supervised and unsupervised methods. Recently, Yang et al. [1] surprisingly find that unsuper...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | YAN, Meng, FANG, Yicheng, LO, David, XIA, Xin, ZHANG, Xiaohong |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2017
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/3923 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/4925/viewcontent/esem17.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
Similar Items
-
Supervised vs unsupervised models: A holistic look at effort-aware just-in-time defect prediction
by: HUANG, Qiao, et al.
Published: (2017) -
Revisiting supervised and unsupervised models for effort-aware just-in-time defect prediction
by: HUANG, Qiao, et al.
Published: (2018) -
Revisiting supervised and unsupervised methods for effort-aware cross-project defect prediction
by: NI, Chao, et al.
Published: (2020) -
HYDRA: Massively compositional model for cross-project defect prediction
by: XIA, Xin, et al.
Published: (2016) -
Build Predictor: More Accurate Missed Dependency Prediction in Build Configuration Files
by: Zhou, Bo, et al.
Published: (2014)