ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Use of relative code churn measures to predict system defect density
Full text PdfPdf (287 KB)
Source International Conference on Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering table of contents
St. Louis, MO, USA
SESSION: Empirical software engineering table of contents
Pages: 284 - 292  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-59593-963-2
Authors
Nachiappan Nagappan  North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Thomas Ball  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 134,   Citation Count: 29
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1062455.1062514
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Software systems evolve over time due to changes in requirements, optimization of code, fixes for security and reliability bugs etc. Code churn, which measures the changes made to a component over a period of time, quantifies the extent of this change. We present a technique for early prediction of system defect density using a set of relative code churn measures that relate the amount of churn to other variables such as component size and the temporal extent of churn.Using statistical regression models, we show that while absolute measures of code churn are poor predictors of defect density, our set of relative measures of code churn is highly predictive of defect density. A case study performed on Windows Server 2003 indicates the validity of the relative code churn measures as early indicators of system defect density. Furthermore, our code churn metric suite is able to discriminate between fault and not fault-prone binaries with an accuracy of 89.0 percent.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
ANSI/IEEE, "IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, Standard 729," 1983.
 
2
 
3
 
4
Brace, N., Kemp, R., Snelgar, R., SPSS for Psychologists: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
 
5
6
 
7
 
8
Fenton, N. E., Pfleeger, S.L., Software Metrics. Boston, MA: International Thompson Publishing, 1997.
 
9
 
10
Jackson, E. J., A User's Guide to Principal Components: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1991.
 
11
Kaiser, H. F., "An Index of Factorial Simplicity," Psychometrika, Vol. 39, No., pp. 31--36, 1974.
 
12
Karunanithi, N., "A Neural Network approach for Software Reliability Growth Modeling in the Presence of Code Churn," Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 1993, pp. 310--317.
 
13
 
14
Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Allen, E.B., Kalaichelvan, K.S., Goel, N., Hudepohl, J.P., Mayrand, J., "Detection of fault-prone program modules in a very large telecommunications system," Proceedings of International Symposium Software Reliability Engineering, 1995, pp. 24--33.
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
Ohlsson, M. C., von Mayrhauser, A., McGuire, B., Wohlin, C., "Code Decay Analysis of Legacy Software through Successive Releases," Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1999, pp. 69--81.
20

CITED BY  29


REVIEW

"Elliot Jaffe : Reviewer"

New software releases are not defect free, and such defects are expensive to fix once they have been deployed in the field. If a company can predict which components are likely to have more defects, then they can focus their quality assurance (QA)  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Nachiappan Nagappan: colleagues
Thomas Ball: colleagues