English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Shepperd et al. find that the reported performance of a defect prediction model shares a strong relationship with the group of researchers who construct the models. In this paper, we perform an alternative investigation of Shepperd et al.'s data. We observe that (a) research group shares a strong association with other explanatory variables (i.e., the dataset and metric families that are used to build a model); (b) the strong association among these explanatory variables makes it difficult to discern the impact of the research group on model performance; and (c) after mitigating the impact of this strong association, we find that the research group has a smaller impact than the metric family. These observations lead us to conclude that the relationship between the research group and the performance of a defect prediction model are more likely due to the tendency of researchers to reuse experimental components (e.g., datasets and metrics). We recommend that researchers experiment with a broader selection of datasets and metrics to combat any potential bias in their results.

Comments on "Researcher bias: The use of machine learning in software defect prediction"