Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 55 references

Better Knowledge Enhancement for Privacy-Preserving Cross-Project Defect Prediction

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FedDP claims that privacy-preserving cross-project defect prediction under non-IID data can be substantially improved by distilling a heterogeneity-aware ensemble of local models into the global model using open-source data.

desk verdict A solid empirical recipe for federated knowledge distillation in defect prediction, but the claimed novelty of the correlation factor is weakly supported by both theory and ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17317 v1 pith:UDHEZCOB submitted 2024-12-23 cs.LG cs.SE

Yuying Wang , Yichen Li , Haozhao Wang , Lei Zhao , Xiaofang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SE
keywords cross-projectdefectpredictionfederatedlearningknowledgedistillationprivacypreservationnon-IIDdatasoftwareheterogeneity-awareensemble
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes FedDP, a federated-learning method for cross-project defect prediction in which companies' project data never leaves their own clients. FedDP's central claim is that data heterogeneity among clients can be overcome by using open-source project data as a distillation set: after local training, the server builds a teacher from a weighted ensemble of local models, with each client's weight set by how similar its local data is to each distillation sample, and distills that ensemble into the aggregated global model. Experiments on 14 Promise and 5 Softlab projects report that FedDP significantly outperforms FLR, Almity, FedAvg, FedProx, and OpenFLR, with an average F1 improvement of 2.66% over FL baselines and performance close to centralized training. The practical stake is that companies could cooperatively train defect predictors across proprietary codebases without sharing raw data, even when the client data is non-IID.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the heterogeneity-aware teacher ensemble. For a distillation sample $x^d_i$, client $k$'s contribution is weighted by $\alpha^k_i$, computed by normalizing $C^k_i$ across participating clients; $C^k_i$ is the average cosine similarity between $x^d_i$ and all samples in the client's private dataset. The student is the aggregated global model $w_{t+1}$, and the distillation loss is the KL divergence between the teacher's weighted soft predictions and the student's soft predictions on open-source data (Eq. 5). This lets the server transfer ensemble knowledge without ever training directly on open-source labels, sidestepping the distribution shift that the paper shows degrades the naive OpenFLR baseline.

What would settle it

On the same datasets and splits, compute for each distillation sample the correlation factor from Eq. (3) and each client model's error on that sample, then check whether higher similarity predicts lower error, for example with a rank correlation or by comparing FedDP against a version using random weights in place of $\alpha^k_i$. If the correlation is absent, or random-weight FedDP matches the reported F1, the heterogeneity-aware teacher is not the source of the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that directly fine-tuning the global model on open-source data hurts federated defect prediction, whereas distilling the ensemble of local models on that same data helps. FedDP computes, for each client and each distillation sample, a correlation factor $C^k_i$ (Eq. 3): the average cosine similarity between the sample and the client's local data. These factors are normalized into personalized weights $\alpha^k_i$ (Eq. 4), and the server minimizes the KL divergence between the soft predictions of the weighted teacher ensemble and those of the aggregated student model (Eq. 5). The paper reports that this two-step recipe, local heterogeneity awareness plus global knowledge distillation, yields significant gains over parameter-averaging baselines on both Java and C datasets, reaches target F1 in fewer communication rounds, and lands within a few points of centralized training.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a client model is more trustworthy on an open-source sample when that sample looks similar, in raw feature space, to the client's own training data; if similarity to training data is not a reliable guide to prediction correctness, the weighted ensemble loses its advantage over an unweighted one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FedDP works as reported, federated defect prediction no longer needs to assume IID client data; companies with very different project scales and defect rates can still train a shared predictor.
  • FedDP reaches target F1 in fewer communication rounds than FLR, OpenFLR, and Almity, which lowers the practical cost of cross-company federated training.
  • Since FedDP improves both FedAvg and FedProx bases, it behaves as a plug-in distillation layer rather than a full algorithm replacement.
  • The ablation results imply that most of the gain comes from knowledge distillation itself, with the correlation factors adding a smaller but consistent improvement.
  • Closer-to-centralized F1 and AUC suggest that the privacy-utility gap in this federated setting can be narrowed without relaxing privacy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's core mechanism would be to measure, per distillation sample, the rank correlation between the cosine-similarity score $C^k_i$ and the local model's actual prediction error; if that correlation is negligible, the personalized weights in Eq. (4) add nothing over an unweighted ensemble.
  • The paper shares correlation factors and soft predictions with the server; an adversarial analysis of what those quantities reveal about local feature distributions is a privacy question the paper does not address.
  • Because the method only needs a public distillation set and any differentiable student, FedDP could be transferred to other tabular federated classification tasks, such as code smell detection or bug-fix classification, where a proxy public dataset exists.
  • The authors' closing note admits dependence on distillation data quality; a natural extension beyond what the paper demonstrates would pair FedDP with a data-free generator so no public dataset is required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper introduces FedDP, a federated learning method for cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) under non-IID client data. The method augments standard FL aggregation with global knowledge distillation on open-source project data: each client computes a correlation factor between its local data and each distillation sample via average cosine similarity (Eq. 3), the server normalizes these into teacher weights (Eq. 4), and the aggregated global model is distilled from the weighted ensemble of local-model soft predictions (Eq. 5). Experiments on the Promise and Softlab datasets compare FedDP with FLR, Almity, OpenFLR, FedAvg, and FedProx, reporting F1/AUC improvements, communication-round reductions, sensitivity analyses, and an ablation.

Significance. If the empirical claims are supported, FedDP would be a practical and inexpensive recipe for privacy-preserving CPDP with heterogeneous clients, and the paper has several strengths: it evaluates on many projects with multiple metrics and statistical tests, includes an ablation, examines communication efficiency, and provides a data/code link. The central novelty, however, is the heterogeneity-aware weighting in Eqs. (4)-(5), and the paper does not currently establish that this weighting is either valid or essential: the cosine-similarity proxy is unvalidated, the ablation shows only about 0.3 F1 change when the factor is removed, and the closest federated distillation baselines (FedDF, DaFKD) are not evaluated. The privacy-preservation claim is also asserted without any leakage or attack analysis. These gaps make the current evidence insufficient for the stated central claim, but they are addressable with additional experiments and analysis.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.1, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The correlation factor C_i^k is the paper's main novelty, but it rests on an unvalidated proxy. The text justifies it by the intuition that a model is more likely to be correct on a sample similar to its training distribution, yet no evidence links raw-feature cosine similarity on skewed, count-based software metrics to local-model correctness or confidence. Table 9 shows that removing the factor changes F1 by only 0.30 (FedAvg: 48.93 vs 48.63; FedProx: 49.14 vs 48.60), whereas removing distillation entirely changes F1 by 2.19 and 2.31 respectively. Please report (a) a correlation or calibration analysis between C_i^k and per-sample local-model accuracy, (b) a FedDF-style unweighted-teacher baseline, and (c) control experiments with random or inverse weights, so the reader can see whether the weighting mechanism, rather than distillation alone, drives the reported gains.
  2. [Sections 3 and 4.2; Algorithm 1] The title, abstract, and problem formulation repeatedly call the setting privacy-preserving, but no privacy analysis appears in the paper. In Algorithm 1 clients upload both full local model parameters and the correlation vector C^k (lines 6 and 19), and neither the parameter-sharing nor the similarity-sharing step is examined for leakage (e.g., gradient or parameter inversion, membership inference, or reconstruction from C^k). Since the privacy guarantee is part of the paper's central claim, please add a concrete privacy analysis (DP bounds, an attack evaluation, or an explicit threat model with residual risks) or revise the wording to 'no raw data sharing' and discuss the limitations.
  3. [Sections 2.3 and 5.3] The closest existing methods to FedDP are FedDF and DaFKD, both cited in the related work, yet neither is included in the baselines of Section 5.3 or in Tables 3-6. FedDF with an open-source distillation set is exactly FedDP without the correlation-factor weighting, so it is the natural control for the paper's central contribution; DaFKD also performs domain-aware weighted distillation. Section 8.1 additionally admits that baseline implementations may be imperfect because not all baselines are open-sourced. Please add these baselines (or explain with experiments why they are inapplicable to tabular CPDP) and, given the admission in Section 8.1, release the exact evaluation pipeline so the reported FLR/Almity numbers can be checked.
  4. [Sections 5.4, 7.2, and Tables 3-6] Distillation steps N and sampling size p are tuned on the same test benchmarks used for the headline results. Section 5.4 sets N=10 and p=700, and Section 7.2 reports these as the best values on the test projects; the significance tests in Tables 3-6 then reuse the same test data. This creates optimistic bias in the reported p-values and average improvements. Use a held-out validation set or a nested procedure, or present the sensitivity results as exploratory rather than as support for the final configuration.
  5. [Section 5.2.2 and Table 5] The W/T/L summaries and the text in Section 6.1 overstate the aggregate result. On Promise F1, FedDP (FedProx) has W/T/L = 8/0/5 against Almity, i.e., it loses on 5 of 13 projects, and the average F1 differences in Table 5 are roughly 2.2 points against FLR and 1.6-2.4 points against Almity, not the 3.10% stated in Section 6.1. The per-project Wilcoxon tests do not by themselves support the abstract's claim of significant improvement over all tested projects. Please report a paired test over all test projects (or an appropriate multiple-comparison correction) and characterize the per-project losses explicitly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.1] The project counts are inconsistent: the abstract says 14 Promise and 5 Softlab projects, but Tables 3-6 report 13 Promise test projects and 4 Softlab test projects (camel and ar1 are distillation only). Please clarify the counts.
  2. [Tables 3-6] The p-value columns do not state whether they compare FedDP-FedAvg or FedDP-FedProx; the header 'FedDP vs. FLR vs. Almity' is ambiguous.
  3. [Table 1] There is a typo in 'Pomise', and the category entries for camel are left blank without explanation.
  4. [Figures 2-5] The submitted text contains placeholder glyphs in the figure content; the final figures need readable axis labels, legends, and captions.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The soft-prediction notation s(w; x) is used without a formal definition; please define it explicitly.
  6. [Section 6.3 and Table 8] The numbers in the text (0.05%, 5.11%, 2.25%, 1.30% for FedDP vs FLR on 'camel') do not match Table 8 (0.04%, 5.27%, 2.19%, 1.36% for the FedAvg row); the table and text need to be reconciled.
  7. [Section 7.4] The generalization discussion for code clone detection and bug-fix commits is presented without supporting experiments; it should be framed as future work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; FedDP's Eqs. (3)-(5) are self-contained, but the headline F1/AUC numbers are partly fitted to the test set via N and p selection.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.2 (Distillation Step and Sampling Size), fixed in Section 5.4 (Configuration), reported in Tables 3-6]
    "When the distillation step is set to 10, the values of F1 and AUC reach their maximum. ... As the sampling size p changed from 100 to 1600, both the AUC and F1 values of FedDP show minor fluctuations, peaking at p = 700. Taking into account both performance and training overhead, we set p = 700 in our experiments."

    The distillation steps N=10 and sampling size p=700 are selected by maximizing F1/AUC on the same test projects that later appear in the headline comparison tables, with no separate validation split. Section 5.4 then fixes these values, and Tables 3-6 present the resulting F1/AUC as FedDP's predictive performance. The reported 'significantly outperforms baselines' claim is therefore partly an artifact of test-set hyperparameter selection rather than an independent prediction. This is an evaluation-protocol circularity; it does not make Eqs. (3)-(5) mathematically self-referential, because the correlation factor and teacher logits are computed without test labels.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. Eq. (3) defines the correlation factor as the mean cosine similarity between each distillation sample and a client's local samples; Eq. (4) normalizes those fixed similarities; Eq. (5) distills the aggregated global model toward the weighted ensemble of local-model soft predictions on the open-source distillation data. None of these quantities involves the test labels or the reported F1/AUC, so the teacher-student construction is not equivalent to its inputs. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., refs. 29, 30, 33, 34, 38, 48) are background/related-work citations and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The cosine-similarity proxy is an unvalidated heuristic rather than a circular construct. The only circularity-adjacent practice is the test-set-based selection of N and p in Section 7.2, which inflates the headline numbers but does not collapse the method's derivation. Section 8.1's admitted imperfect baseline replication is a validity threat, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on two untested modeling assumptions: raw-feature cosine similarity as a proxy for model reliability, and the FL premise that uploading models and correlation vectors preserves privacy. It also uses hyperparameters selected on the test benchmarks and a distillation set drawn from the same repository as the training data. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • distillation sampling size p = 700
    Selected because F1 and AUC peak at p=700 in Section 7.2; the main results reuse this tuned value.
  • distillation steps N = 10
    Selected at the F1/AUC maximum in Section 7.2; the main results use N=10.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity in raw feature space between a distillation sample and local training samples reflects the reliability of a client's model on that sample.
    Introduced in Eq. (3) and Section 4.2.1; no evidence is given that raw-feature cosine similarity predicts model correctness for tabular defect prediction data.
  • domain assumption A weighted ensemble of local model soft predictions is a better teacher than the aggregated global model.
    Motivates Eq. (5); plausible but not proven, and the ablation only shows that using the factor helps versus uniform weighting, not that the ensemble teacher is optimal.
  • domain assumption Sharing model updates and correlation factor vectors preserves data privacy.
    The paper relies on the FL privacy guarantee in Section 2.2 but offers no privacy analysis, no attack model, and no defense against inference attacks.
  • domain assumption Using the largest project from the same benchmark as 'open-source' distillation data is representative of real external open-source data.
    The main experiments use camel from Promise and ar1 from Softlab; transfer to genuinely external open-source data is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Better Knowledge Enhancement for Privacy-Preserving Cross-Project Defect Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDHEZCOB

@misc{pith2026241217317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Better Knowledge Enhancement for Privacy-Preserving Cross-Project Defect Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDHEZCOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17317}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-Project Defect Prediction (CPDP) poses a non-trivial challenge to construct a reliable defect predictor by leveraging data from other projects, particularly when data owners are concerned about data privacy. In recent years, Federated Learning (FL) has become an emerging paradigm to guarantee privacy information by collaborative training a global model among multiple parties without sharing raw data. While the direct application of FL to the CPDP task offers a promising solution to address privacy concerns, the data heterogeneity arising from proprietary projects across different companies or organizations will bring troubles for model training. In this paper, we study the privacy-preserving cross-project defect prediction with data heterogeneity under the federated learning framework. To address this problem, we propose a novel knowledge enhancement approach named FedDP with two simple but effective solutions: 1. Local Heterogeneity Awareness and 2. Global Knowledge Distillation. Specifically, we employ open-source project data as the distillation dataset and optimize the global model with the heterogeneity-aware local model ensemble via knowledge distillation. Experimental results on 19 projects from two datasets demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms baselines.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Predicting the Location and Number of Faults in Large Software Systems.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

    Ostrand TJ, Weyuker EJ, Bell RM. Predicting the Location and Number of Faults in Large Software Systems.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2005;31(4):340–355. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2005.49

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2005.49 2005

  2. [2]

    Benchmarking Classification Models for Software Defect Prediction: A Proposed Framework and Novel Findings

    Lessmann S, Baesens B, Mues C, Pietsch S. Benchmarking Classification Models for Software Defect Prediction: A Proposed Framework and Novel Findings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2008;34(4):485–496. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2008.35

    doi:10.1109/tse.2008.35 2008

  3. [3]

    A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering

    Hall T, Beecham S, Bowes D, Gray D, Counsell S. A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2012;38(6):1276-1304. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2011.103

    doi:10.1109/tse.2011.103 2012

  4. [4]

    Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors

    Menzies T, Greenwald J, Frank A. Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2007;33(1):2-13. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2007.256941

    work page arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Within-Project Defect Prediction of Infrastructure-as-Code Using Product and Process Metrics

    Dalla Palma S, Di Nucci D, Palomba F, Tamburri DA. Within-Project Defect Prediction of Infrastructure-as-Code Using Product and Process Metrics. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2022;48(6):2086-2104. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2021.3051492

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    An Improved SDA Based Defect Prediction Framework for Both Within-Project and Cross-Project Class-Imbalance Problems

    Jing XY , Wu F, Dong X, Xu B. An Improved SDA Based Defect Prediction Framework for Both Within-Project and Cross-Project Class-Imbalance Problems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2017;43(4):321-339. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2016.2597849

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    An investigation on the feasibility of cross-project defect prediction

    He Z, Shu F, Yang Y , Li M, Wang Q. An investigation on the feasibility of cross-project defect prediction. Automated Software Engineering. 2012;19(2):167-199. doi: 10.1007/s10515-011-0090-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10515-011-0090-3 2012

  8. [8]

    On the relative value of cross-company and within-company data for defect prediction.Empirical Software Engineering

    Turhan B, Menzies T, Bener AB, Stefano JD. On the relative value of cross-company and within-company data for defect prediction.Empirical Software Engineering. 2009;14(5):540-578. doi: 10.1007/S10664-008-9103-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9103-7 2009

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Cross versus Within-Company Cost Estimation Studies: A Systematic Review.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

    Kitchenham BA, Mendes E, Travassos GH. Cross versus Within-Company Cost Estimation Studies: A Systematic Review.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2007;33(5):316–329. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2007.1001

    2007

  2. [11]

    Multi-objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction

    Canfora G, Lucia AD, Penta MD, Oliveto R, Panichella A, Panichella S. Multi-objective Cross-Project Defect Prediction. In: IEEE Computer Society. 2013:252–261

    2013

  3. [12]

    A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on Cross Project Defect Prediction

    Hosseini S, Turhan B, Gunarathna D. A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on Cross Project Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2019;45(2):111–147. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2017.2770124

    2019

  4. [13]

    Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Using the number of developers to enhance defect prediction models

    Weyuker EJ, Ostrand TJ, Bell RM. Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Using the number of developers to enhance defect prediction models. Empirical Software Engineering. 2008;13(5):539-559. doi: 10.1007/s10664-008-9082-8

    2008 doi

  5. [14]

    On the Multiple Sources and Privacy Preservation Issues for Heterogeneous Defect Prediction

    Li Z, Jing XY , Zhu X, Zhang H, Xu B, Ying S. On the Multiple Sources and Privacy Preservation Issues for Heterogeneous Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2019;45(4):391-411. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2017.2780222

    2019

  6. [15]

    LACE2: Better Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing for Cross Project Defect Prediction

    Peters F, Menzies T, Layman L. LACE2: Better Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing for Cross Project Defect Prediction. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy. 2015:801–811

    2015

  7. [16]

    Towards Privacy Preserving Cross Project Defect Prediction with Federated Learning

    Yamamoto H, Wang D, Rajbahadur GK, Kondo M, Kamei Y , Ubayashi N. Towards Privacy Preserving Cross Project Defect Prediction with Federated Learning. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2023, Taipa, Macao. 2023:485–496

    2023

  8. [17]

    Federated Learning for Software Engineering: A Case Study of Code Clone Detection and Defect Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

    Yang Y , Hu X, Gao Z, et al. Federated Learning for Software Engineering: A Case Study of Code Clone Detection and Defect Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2024;50(2):296-321. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2023.3347898

    2024

  9. [18]

    Exploring the under-explored terrain of non-open source data for software engineering through the lens of federated learning

    Shanbhag S, Chimalakonda S. Exploring the under-explored terrain of non-open source data for software engineering through the lens of federated learning. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software...

    2022

  10. [19]

    SCAFFOLD: Stochastic Controlled Averaging for Federated Learning

    Karimireddy SP, Kale S, Mohri M, Reddi SJ, Stich SU, Suresh AT. SCAFFOLD: Stochastic Controlled Averaging for Federated Learning. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, Virtual Event. 2020:5132–5143

    2020

  11. [20]

    On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data

    Li X, Huang K, Yang W, Wang S, Zhang Z. On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data. In: 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2020

    2020

  12. [21]

    Learning from Open-Source Projects: An Empirical Study on Defect Prediction

    He Z, Peters F, Menzies T, Yang Y . Learning from Open-Source Projects: An Empirical Study on Defect Prediction. In: 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 2013:45-54 Better Knowledge Enhancement for Privacy-Preserving Cross-Pr...

    2013

  13. [22]

    Revisiting Supervised and Unsupervised Methods for Effort-Aware Cross-Project Defect Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

    Ni C, Xia X, Lo D, Chen X, Gu Q. Revisiting Supervised and Unsupervised Methods for Effort-Aware Cross-Project Defect Prediction.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2022;48(3):786–802. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2020.3001739

    2022

  14. [23]

    Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier

    Zhang F, Zheng Q, Zou Y , Hassan AE. Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA. 2016:309–320

    2016

  15. [24]

    Cross-project software defect prediction based on domain adaptation learning and optimization

    Jin C. Cross-project software defect prediction based on domain adaptation learning and optimization. Expert Systems with Applications. 2021;171:114637. doi: 10.1016/J.ESW A.2021.114637

    2021

  16. [25]

    MASTER: Multi-Source Transfer Weighted Ensemble Learning for Multiple Sources Cross-Project Defect Prediction

    Tong H, Zhang D, Liu J, et al. MASTER: Multi-Source Transfer Weighted Ensemble Learning for Multiple Sources Cross-Project Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2024;50(5):1281–1305. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2024.3381235

    2024

  17. [26]

    Transfer defect learning

    Nam J, Pan SJ, Kim S. Transfer defect learning. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2013,San Francisco, CA, USA. 2013:382–391

    2013

  18. [27]

    Transfer learning for cross-company software defect prediction

    Ma Y , Luo G, Zeng X, Chen A. Transfer learning for cross-company software defect prediction. Information and Software Technology. 2012;54(3):248–256. doi: 10.1016/J.INFSOF.2011.09.007

    2012 doi

  19. [28]

    HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction

    Xia X, Lo D, Pan SJ, Nagappan N, Wang X. HYDRA: Massively Compositional Model for Cross-Project Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2016;42(10):977–998. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2016.2543218

    2016

  20. [29]

    FedCDA: Federated Learning with Cross-rounds Divergence-aware Aggregation

    Wang H, Xu H, Li Y , Xu Y , Li R, Zhang T. FedCDA: Federated Learning with Cross-rounds Divergence-aware Aggregation. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2023

    2023

  21. [30]

    Unleashing the Power of Continual Learning on Non-Centralized Devices: A Survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutotials

    Li Y , Wang H, Xu W, et al. Unleashing the Power of Continual Learning on Non-Centralized Devices: A Survey.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutotials. 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    From federated learning to federated neural architecture search: a survey.Complex & Intelligent Systems

    Zhu H, Zhang H, Jin Y . From federated learning to federated neural architecture search: a survey.Complex & Intelligent Systems. 2021;7:639–657

    2021

  23. [32]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology

    Yang Q, Liu Y , Chen T, Tong Y . Federated machine learning: Concept and applications.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology. 2019;10(2):1–19

    2019

  24. [33]

    Towards Efficient Replay in Federated Incremental Learning

    Li Y , Li Q, Wang H, Li R, Zhong W, Zhang G. Towards Efficient Replay in Federated Incremental Learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2024:12820-12829

    2024

  25. [34]

    SR-FDIL: Synergistic Replay for Federated Domain-Incremental Learning.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems

    Li Y , Xu W, Qi Y , Wang H, Li R, Guo S. SR-FDIL: Synergistic Replay for Federated Domain-Incremental Learning.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems. 2024;35(11):1879-1890. doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2024.3436874

    2024

  26. [35]

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data

    McMahan B, Moore E, Ramage D, Hampson S, Arcas yBA. Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2017, Fort Lauderdale, USA. 2017

    2017

  27. [36]

    Communication-Efficient On-Device Machine Learning: Federated Distillation and Augmentation under Non-IID Private Data

    Jeong E, Oh S, Kim H, Park J, Bennis M, Kim S. Communication-Efficient On-Device Machine Learning: Federated Distillation and Augmentation under Non-IID Private Data. CoRR. 2018;abs/1811.11479

    2018 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Client-Edge-Cloud Hierarchical Federated Learning

    Liu L, Zhang J, Song S, Letaief KB. Client-Edge-Cloud Hierarchical Federated Learning. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2020, Dublin, Ireland. 2020:1–6

    2020

  29. [38]

    Rehearsal-Free Continual Federated Learning with Synergistic Regularization

    Li Y , Wang Y , Xiao T, Wang H, Qi Y , Li R. Rehearsal-Free Continual Federated Learning with Synergistic Regularization. In: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2024

    2024

  30. [39]

    Federated Optimization in Heterogeneous Networks

    Li T, Sahu AK, Zaheer M, Sanjabi M, Talwalkar A, Smith V . Federated Optimization in Heterogeneous Networks. In: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Learning and Systems, MLSys 2020, Austin, TX, USA. 2020

    2020

  31. [40]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    Hinton GE, Vinyals O, Dean J. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. CoRR. 2015;abs/1503.02531

    2015 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Learning from Noisy Labels with Distillation

    Li Y , Yang J, Song Y , Cao L, Luo J, Li L. Learning from Noisy Labels with Distillation. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2017, Venice, Italy. 2017:1928–1936

    2017

  33. [42]

    Distillation-Based Training for Multi-Exit Architectures

    Phuong M, Lampert C. Distillation-Based Training for Multi-Exit Architectures. In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2019, Seoul, Korea (South). 2019:1355–1364

    2019

  34. [43]

    Training Deep Neural Networks in Generations: A More Tolerant Teacher Educates Better Students

    Yang C, Xie L, Qiao S, Yuille AL. Training Deep Neural Networks in Generations: A More Tolerant Teacher Educates Better Students. In: The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 2019:5628–5635

    2019

  35. [44]

    Online Knowledge Distillation via Collaborative Learning

    Guo Q, Wang X, Wu Y , et al. Online Knowledge Distillation via Collaborative Learning. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, W A, USA. 2020:11017–11026

    2020

  36. [45]

    Peer Collaborative Learning for Online Knowledge Distillation

    Wu G, Gong S. Peer Collaborative Learning for Online Knowledge Distillation. In: The Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Virtual Event. 2021:10302–10310

    2021

  37. [46]

    Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning

    Lin T, Kong L, Stich SU, Jaggi M. Ensemble distillation for robust model fusion in federated learning. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems,NeurIPS 2020, virtual Event. 2020

    2020

  38. [47]

    Data-Free Knowledge Distillation for Heterogeneous Federated Learning

    Zhu Z, Hong J, Zhou J. Data-Free Knowledge Distillation for Heterogeneous Federated Learning. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021,Virtual Event. 2021:12878–12889

    2021

  39. [48]

    DaFKD: Domain-aware Federated Knowledge Distillation

    Wang H, Li Y , Xu W, Li R, Zhan Y , Zeng Z. DaFKD: Domain-aware Federated Knowledge Distillation. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2023:20412–20421

    2023

  40. [49]

    Self-Training With Noisy Student Improves ImageNet Classification

    Xie Q, Luong M, Hovy EH, Le QV . Self-Training With Noisy Student Improves ImageNet Classification. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, W A, USA. 2020:10684–10695

    2020

  41. [50]

    On Information and Sufficiency

    Kullback S, Leibler RA. On Information and Sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1951;22:79-86

    1951

  42. [51]

    Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction

    Wang S, Liu T, Nam J, Tan L. Deep Semantic Feature Learning for Software Defect Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2020;46(12):1267–1293. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2018.2877612

    2020

  43. [52]

    Software defect prediction using Bayesian networks

    Okutan A, Yildiz OT. Software defect prediction using Bayesian networks. Empirical Software Engineering. 2014;19(1):154–181. doi: 10.1007/S10664-012-9218-8

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    Automatically learning semantic features for defect prediction

    Wang S, Liu T, Tan L. Automatically learning semantic features for defect prediction. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA. 2016:297–308

    2016

  45. [54]

    Towards building a universal defect prediction model with rank transformed predictors

    Zhang F, Mockus A, Keivanloo I, Zou Y . Towards building a universal defect prediction model with rank transformed predictors. Empirical Software Engineering. 2016;21:2107–2145

    2016

  46. [55]

    Data transformation in cross-project defect prediction.Empirical Software Engineering

    Zhang F, Keivanloo I, Zou Y . Data transformation in cross-project defect prediction.Empirical Software Engineering. 2017;22:3186–3218

    2017

  47. [56]

    Just-in-time defect prediction based on AST change embedding

    Zhuang W, Wang H, Zhang X. Just-in-time defect prediction based on AST change embedding. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2022;248:108852. doi: 10.1016/J.KNOSYS.2022.108852

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.