Pith. sign in

REVIEW

MBL-CPDP: A Multi-objective Bilevel Method for Cross-Project Defect Prediction via Automated Machine Learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.06491 v1 pith:HS7MQZTJ submitted 2024-11-10 cs.NE

classification cs.NE
keywords problemcross-projectlearningcpdpdatambl-cpdpmethodmulti-objective
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Cross-project defect prediction (CPDP) leverages machine learning (ML) techniques to proactively identify software defects, especially where project-specific data is scarce. However, developing a robust ML pipeline with optimal hyperparameters that effectively use cross-project information and yield satisfactory performance remains challenging. In this paper, we resolve this bottleneck by formulating CPDP as a multi-objective bilevel optimization (MBLO) method, dubbed MBL-CPDP. It comprises two nested problems: the upper-level, a multi-objective combinatorial optimization problem, enhances robustness and efficiency in optimizing ML pipelines, while the lower-level problem is an expensive optimization problem that focuses on tuning their optimal hyperparameters. Due to the high-dimensional search space characterized by feature redundancy and inconsistent data distributions, the upper-level problem combines feature selection, transfer learning, and classification to leverage limited and heterogeneous historical data. Meanwhile, an ensemble learning method is proposed to capture differences in cross-project distribution and generalize across diverse datasets. Finally, a MBLO algorithm is presented to solve this problem while achieving high adaptability effectively. To evaluate the performance of MBL-CPDP, we compare it with five automated ML tools and $50$ CPDP techniques across $20$ projects. Extensive empirical results show that MBL-CPDPoutperforms the comparison methods, demonstrating its superior adaptability and comprehensive performance evaluation capability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools