Context: Conducting experiments is central to research machine learning research to benchmark, evaluate and compare learning algorithms. Consequently it is important we conduct reliable, trustworthy experiments. Objective: We investigate the incidenc
e of errors in a sample of machine learning experiments in the domain of software defect prediction. Our focus is simple arithmetical and statistical errors. Method: We analyse 49 papers describing 2456 individual experimental results from a previously undertaken systematic review comparing supervised and unsupervised defect prediction classifiers. We extract the confusion matrices and test for relevant constraints, e.g., the marginal probabilities must sum to one. We also check for multiple statistical significance testing errors. Results: We find that a total of 22 out of 49 papers contain demonstrable errors. Of these 7 were statistical and 16 related to confusion matrix inconsistency (one paper contained both classes of error). Conclusions: Whilst some errors may be of a relatively trivial nature, e.g., transcription errors their presence does not engender confidence. We strongly urge researchers to follow open science principles so errors can be more easily be detected and corrected, thus as a community reduce this worryingly high error rate with our computational experiments.
Background: Unsupervised machine learners have been increasingly applied to software defect prediction. It is an approach that may be valuable for software practitioners because it reduces the need for labeled training data. Objective: Investigate th
e use and performance of unsupervised learning techniques in software defect prediction. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review that identified 49 studies containing 2456 individual experimental results, which satisfied our inclusion criteria published between January 2000 and March 2018. In order to compare prediction performance across these studies in a consistent way, we (re-)computed the confusion matrices and employed the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) as our main performance measure. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that unsupervised models are comparable with supervised models for both within-project and cross-project prediction. Among the 14 families of unsupervised model, Fuzzy CMeans (FCM) and Fuzzy SOMs (FSOMs) perform best. In addition, where we were able to check, we found that almost 11% (262/2456) of published results (contained in 16 papers) were internally inconsistent and a further 33% (823/2456) provided insufficient details for us to check. Conclusion: Although many factors impact the performance of a classifier, e.g., dataset characteristics, broadly speaking, unsupervised classifiers do not seem to perform worse than the supervised classifiers in our review. However, we note a worrying prevalence of (i) demonstrably erroneous experimental results, (ii) undemanding benchmarks and (iii) incomplete reporting. We therefore encourage researchers to be comprehensive in their reporting.
