mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On The Effectiveness of One-Class Support Vector Machine in Different Defect Prediction Scenarios

arXiv 2202.12074 ↗First posted 24 Feb 2022cs.SE cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Defect prediction aims at identifying software components that are likely to cause faults before a software is made available to the end-user. To date, this task has been modeled as a two-class classification problem, however its nature also allows it to be formulated as a one-class classification task. Previous studies show that One-Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM) can outperform two-class classifiers for within-project defect prediction, however it is not effective when employed at a finer granularity (i.e., commit-level defect prediction). In this paper, we further investigate whether learning from one class only is sufficient to produce effective defect prediction model in two other different scenarios (i.e., granularity), namely cross-version and cross-project defect prediction models, as well as replicate the previous work at within-project granularity for completeness. Our empirical results confirm that OCSVM performance remain low at different granularity levels, that is, it is outperformed by the two-class Random Forest (RF) classifier for both cross-version and cross-project defect prediction. While, we cannot conclude that OCSVM is the best classifier, our results still show interesting findings. While OCSVM does not outperform RF, it still achieves performance superior to its two-class counterpart (i.e., SVM) as well as other two-class classifiers studied herein. We also observe that OCSVM is more suitable for both cross-version and cross-project defect prediction, rather than for within-project defect prediction, thus suggesting it performs better with heterogeneous data. We encourage further research on one-class classifiers for defect prediction as these techniques may serve as an alternative when data about defective modules is scarce or not available.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2022.

Builds on

7 of 53 references.

References · 7

  1. 2013One-Class Classification: Taxonomy of Study and Review of Techniquescited by 68
  2. 2018The Impact of Class Rebalancing Techniques on the Performance and Interpretation of Defect Prediction Modelscited by 29
  3. 2017Is "Better Data" Better than "Better Data Miners"? (On the Benefits of Tuning SMOTE for Defect Prediction)cited by 17
  4. 2020Assessing Software Defection Prediction Performance: Why Using the Matthews Correlation Coefficient Matterscited by 8
  5. 2021Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimationcited by 6
  6. 2016Negative Results for Software Effort Estimationcited by 1
  7. 2020On the Need of Removing Last Releases of Data When Using or Validating Defect Prediction Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.