mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SQAPlanner: Generating Data-Informed Software Quality Improvement Plans

arXiv 2102.09687 ↗First posted 19 Feb 2021cs.SE cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Software Quality Assurance (SQA) planning aims to define proactive plans, such as defining maximum file size, to prevent the occurrence of software defects in future releases. To aid this, defect prediction models have been proposed to generate insights as the most important factors that are associated with software quality. Such insights that are derived from traditional defect models are far from actionable-i.e., practitioners still do not know what they should do or avoid to decrease the risk of having defects, and what is the risk threshold for each metric. A lack of actionable guidance and risk threshold can lead to inefficient and ineffective SQA planning processes. In this paper, we investigate the practitioners' perceptions of current SQA planning activities, current challenges of such SQA planning activities, and propose four types of guidance to support SQA planning. We then propose and evaluate our AI-Driven SQAPlanner approach, a novel approach for generating four types of guidance and their associated risk thresholds in the form of rule-based explanations for the predictions of defect prediction models. Finally, we develop and evaluate an information visualization for our SQAPlanner approach. Through the use of qualitative survey and empirical evaluation, our results lead us to conclude that SQAPlanner is needed, effective, stable, and practically applicable. We also find that 80% of our survey respondents perceived that our visualization is more actionable. Thus, our SQAPlanner paves a way for novel research in actionable software analytics-i.e., generating actionable guidance on what should practitioners do and not do to decrease the risk of having defects to support SQA planning.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2021.

Builds on

14 of 71 references.

References · 14

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  2. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
  3. 2016Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 219
  4. 2018Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systemscited by 166
  5. 2018The Impact of Automated Parameter Optimization on Defect Prediction Modelscited by 38
  6. 2018The Impact of Class Rebalancing Techniques on the Performance and Interpretation of Defect Prediction Modelscited by 29
  7. 2018Explanations of model predictions with live and breakDown packagescited by 17
  8. 2020Predicting Defective Lines Using a Model-Agnostic Techniquecited by 14
  9. 2019LoRMIkA: Local rule-based model interpretability with k-optimal associationscited by 10
  10. 2020Explainable AI for Software Engineeringcited by 8
  11. 2018Applications of Psychological Science for Actionable Analyticscited by 5
  12. 2018AutoSpearman: Automatically Mitigating Correlated Metrics for Interpreting Defect Modelscited by 4
2 more
  1. 2018The Impact of Correlated Metrics on Defect Modelscited by 2
  2. 2021Assessing the Students' Understanding and their Mistakes in Code Review Checklists -- An Experience Report of 1,791 Code Review Checklist Questions from 394 Studentscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 2.

4 papers.