The object of Software Defect Prediction (SDP) is to identify modules that are prone to defect. This is achieved by training prediction models with datasets obtained by mining software historical depositories. When one acquires data through this approach, it often includes class imbalance which has an unequal class representation among their example. We hypothesize that the imbalance learning is not a problem in itself and decrease in performance is also influenced by other factors related to class distribution in the data. One of these is the existence of noisy and borderline examples. Thus, the objective of our research is to propose a novel preprocessing method using Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique (SMOTE), Fuzzy-rough Instance Selection type II (FRIS-II) and Iterative Noise Filter based on the Fusion of Classifiers (INFFC) which can overcome these problems. The experimental results show that the new proposal significantly outperformed all the methods compared in this study.
RadatzJ., GeraciA. and KatkiF., IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology, IEEE Std 610121990(121990) (1990), 1–84.
2.
LessmannS., BaesensB., MuesC. and PietschS., Benchmarking classification models for software defect prediction: A proposed framework and novel findings, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering34(4) (2008), 485–496.
3.
CatalC. and DiriB., A systematic review of software fault prediction studies, Expert Systems with Applications36(4) (2009), 7346–7354.
4.
ChawlaN. V., BowyerK. W., HallL. O. and KegelmeyerW. P., SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research16(1) (2002), 321–357.
5.
BashirK., LiT., YohanneseC. W. and MahamaY., Enhancing software defect prediction using supervised-learning based framework. In 12th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE) (2017), 1–6.
6.
BrancoP., TorgoL. and RibeiroR. P., A survey of predictive modeling on imbalanced domains, ACM Computing Surveys49(2) (2016), 1–50.
7.
ChubatoW. Y. and LiT., A combined-learning based framework for improved software fault prediction, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems10(1) (2017), 647–662.
8.
GalarM., FernandezA., BarrenecheaE., BustinceH. and HerreraF., A review on ensembles for the class imbalance problem: Bagging-, boosting-, and hybrid-based approaches, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)42(4) (2012), 463–484.
9.
KhoshgoftaarT. M., GaoK. and SeliyaN., Attribute selection and imbalanced data: Problems in software defect prediction. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence1 (2010), 137–144.
10.
OgawaK., MatsumotoK. and HashimotoM., Editing training sets from imbalanced data using fuzzy-rough sets. In IFIP International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations (2015), 115–129.
11.
SeiffertC., KhoshgoftaarT. M., Van HulseJ. and NapolitanoA., RUSBoost: A hybrid approach to alleviating class imbalance, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans40(1) (2010), 185–197.
12.
ChubatoW. Y., LiT., SimfukweM. and KhurshidF., Ensembles based combined learning for improved software fault prediction: A comparative study. In International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE) (2017), 1–6.
13.
WangS. and YaoX., Using class imbalance learning for software defect prediction, IEEE Transactions on Reliability62(2) (2013), 434–443.
14.
ChubatoW. Y., LiT. and BashirK., A Three-Stage Based Ensemble Learning for Improved Software Fault Prediction: An Empirical Comparative Study, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems10(14) (2018), 26.
15.
HeH. and GarciaE. A., Learning from imbalanced data, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering21(9) (2008), 1263–1284.
16.
LópezV., FernándezA. and HerreraF., On the importance of the validation technique for classification with imbalanced datasets: Addressing covariate shift when data is skewed, Information Sciences257(2) (2014), 1–13.
17.
JapkowiczN., Class imbalances: are we focusing on the right issue. Inpage , Workshop on Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets II1723 (2003), 63.
18.
GarcíaV., SánchezJ. and MollinedaR., An empirical study of the behavior of classifiers on imbalanced and overlapped data sets. In Iberoamerican Congress on Pattern Recognition (2007), 397–406.
19.
NapierałaK., StefanowskiJ. and WilkS., Learning from imbalanced data in presence of noisy and borderline examples. In International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (2010), 158–167.
20.
KubatM. and MatwinS., et al., Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection. In Icml97 (1997), 179–186. Nashville, USA.
21.
Bashirk., LiT., ChubatoW. Y., YahayaM. and AliT., A novel preprocessing approach for imbalanced learning in software defect prediction. In 13 International Conference on Data Science and Knowledge Engineering for Sensing Decision Support (FLINS 2018), Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. World Scientific (2018).
22.
JensenR. and CornelisC., Fuzzy-rough instance selection. In IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ) (2010), 1–7.
23.
SaezJ. A., LuengoJ., StefanowskiJ. and HerreraF., SMOTEIPF: addressing the noisy and borderline examples problem in imbalanced classification by a re-sampling method with filtering, Information Sciences291(291) (2015), 184–203.
24.
BunkhumpornpatC., SinapiromsaranK. and LursinsapC., Safe-level-smote: Safe-level-synthetic minority over-sampling technique for handling the class imbalanced problem. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2009), 475–482.
25.
HanH., WangW.-Y. and MaoB.-H., Borderline-smote: a new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In International Conference on Intelligent Computing (2005), 878–887.
26.
BaruaS., IslamM., YaoX. and MuraseK., MWMOTE–majority weighted minority oversampling technique for imbalanced data set learning, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering26(2) (2014), 405–425.
27.
HeH., BaiY., GarciaE. A. and LiS., Adasyn: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) (2008), 1322–1328.
28.
TangS. and ChenS.-P., The generation mechanism of synthetic minority class examples. In 2008 International Conference on Information Technology and Applications in Biomedicine (2008), 444–447.
29.
BatistaG. E., PratiR. C. and MonardM. C., A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data, ACM Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter6(1) (2004), 20–29.
30.
RamentolE., VerbiestN., BelloR., CaballeroY., CornelisC. and HerreraF., Smote-Frst: A New Resampling Method Using Fuzzy Rough Set Theory, World Scientific Proceedings Series on Computer Engineering and Information Science (2012), 800–805.
31.
PawlakZdzisław, Rough sets, International journal of computer & information sciences11(5) (1982), 341–356.
32.
SáezJ. A., GalarM., LuengoJ. and HerreraF., INFFC: An iterative class noise filter based on the fusion of classifiers with noise sensitivity control, Information Fusion27 (2016), 19–32.
33.
HallM., FrankE., HolmesG., PfahringerB., ReutemannP. and WittenI. H., The weka data mining software: an update, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter11(1) (2009), 10–18.
34.
Alcalá-FdezJ., SanchezL., GarciaS., del JesusM. J., VenturaS., GarrellJ. M., OteroJ., RomeroC., BacarditJ. and RivasV. M., KEEL: a software tool to assess evolutionary algorithms for data mining problems, Soft Computing-A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications13(3) (2009), 307–318.
35.
D’AmbrosM., LanzaM. and RobbesR., Evaluating defect prediction approaches: a benchmark and an extensive comparison, Empirical Software Engineering17(4-5) (2011), 531–577.
36.
KrishnaR., PryorD. and MenziesT., The promise repository of empirical software engineering data. http://openscience.us/repo/. North Carolina State University, Department of Computer Science (2015).
37.
WeissG., Mining with rarity: a unifying framework, ACM Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter6(1) (2004), 7–19.
38.
RijsbergenV, C Keith Joost, Information retrieval Information Retrieval Group, University of Glasgow, butterworths london30(6) (1979).
39.
LandgrebeT. C. and DuinR. P., Efficient multiclass roc approximation by decomposition via confusion matrix perturbation analysis, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence30(5) (2008), 810–822.
40.
GarcíaS., FernándezA., LuengoJ. and HerreraF., Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: Experimental analysis of power, Information Sciences180(10) (2010), 2044–2064.
