mdh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 1 of 1
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Afzal, Wasif
    et al.
    Bahria Univ, Islamabad, Pakistan.
    Torkar, Richard
    Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Gothenburg.
    Feldt, Robert
    Blekinge Institute of Technology.
    Resampling methods in software quality classification2012In: International journal of software engineering and knowledge engineering, ISSN 0218-1940, Vol. 22, no 2, p. 203-223Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In the presence of a number of algorithms for classification and prediction in software engineering, there is a need to have a systematic way of assessing their performances. The performance assessment is typically done by some form of partitioning or resampling of the original data to alleviate biased estimation. For predictive and classification studies in software engineering, there is a lack of a definitive advice on the most appropriate resampling method to use. This is seen as one of the contributing factors for not being able to draw general conclusions on what modeling technique or set of predictor variables are the most appropriate. Furthermore, the use of a variety of resampling methods make it impossible to perform any formal meta analysis of the primary study results. Therefore, it is desirable to examine the influence of various resampling methods and to quantify possible differences. Objective and method: This study empirically compares five common resampling methods (hold-out validation, repeated random sub-sampling, 10-fold cross-validation, leave-one-out cross-validation and nonparametric bootstrapping) using 8 publicly available data sets with genetic programming (GP) and multiple linear regression (MLR) as software quality classification approaches. Location of (PF, PD) pairs in the ROC (receiver operating characteristics) space and area under an ROC curve (AUC) are used as accuracy indicators. Results: The results show that in terms of the location of (PF, PD) pairs in the ROC space, bootstrapping results are in the preferred region for 3 of the 8 data sets for GP and for 4 of the 8 data sets for MLR. Based on the AUC measure, there are no significant differences between the different resampling methods using GP and MLR. Conclusion: There can be certain data set properties responsible for insignificant differences between the resampling methods based on AUC. These include imbalanced data sets, insignificant predictor variables and high-dimensional data sets. With the current selection of data sets and classification techniques, bootstrapping is a preferred method based on the location of (PF, PD) pair data in the ROC space. Hold-out validation is not a good choice for comparatively smaller data sets, where leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) performs better. For comparatively larger data sets, 10-fold cross-validation performs better than LOOCV.

1 - 1 of 1
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf