Methodology for Validating Software Metrics
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Predicting Fault-Prone Software Modules in Telephone Switches
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Software quality control and prediction model for maintenance
Annals of Software Engineering
Detection of Fault-Prone Software Modules During a Spiral Life Cycle
ICSM '96 Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Software Maintenance
Software Metrics Model For Quality Control
METRICS '97 Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Software Metrics
Identification of Green, Yellow and Red Legacy Components
ICSM '98 Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance
Software Metrics Model For Integrating Quality Control And Prediction
ISSRE '97 Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
Predicting Fault-Prone Classes with Design Measures in Object-Oriented Systems
ISSRE '98 Proceedings of the The Ninth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
Determining Fault Insertion Rates for Evolving Software Systems
ISSRE '98 Proceedings of the The Ninth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Over the past several years we have developed the following metrics models: Boolean discriminate functions (BDFs) for classifying quality; Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance for estimating metric critical values; various derivative calculations for assessing the quality that could be achieved with various levels of quality control and inspection; a stopping rule for deciding how many metrics to use in a discriminate function; point and confidence interval estimates of quality; Relative Critical Value Deviation metrics for indexing quality; and non-linear regression functions for predicting quality. We would like these models and metrics to be repeatable across the n builds of a software system. The great advantage of repeatability is that models and metrics only need to be developed and validated once on build 1 and then applied n-1 times without modification to subsequent builds, with considerable savings in analysis and computational effort. In practical terms, this approach involves using the same model parameters (e.g., metrics critical values) that were validated and applying them unchanged on subsequent builds. The disadvantage is that the quality and metrics data of builds 2... n, which varies across builds, is not utilized. We make a comparison of this n approach with one that involves validating models and metrics on each build i and applying them only on build i+1, and then repeating the process. The advantage of this approach is that all available data are used in the models and analysis but at considerable cost in effort. We report on experiments involving large sets of discrepancy report and metrics data on the Space Shuttle flight software, where we compare the predictive accuracy and effort of the two approaches for BDFs, critical values, derivative quality and inspection calculations, and stopping rule.