Total views : 333

A Fault Prediction Approach based on the Probabilistic Model for Improvising Software Inspection

Affiliations

  • Department of Information Technology, Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Dundigal, Hyderabad –500 043, Telangana, India
  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering, J. B. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Bhaskar Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, R. R. District, Hyderabad – 500075, Telangana, India
  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Gokaraju Rangaraju Institute of Engineering and Technology, Nizampet Road, Bachupally, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500090, Telangana, India

Abstract


Objective: Software development is a multitask activity performed by a team. Each activity involves with different tasks and complexity. To achieve quality of improvement it is important that each activity task should be fault free. But, finding and correcting faults are most expensive and time consuming. Methods: Software inspection is a static analysis technique which does not required program execution, instead it use inspector to make decision during the development. Findings: But it was observed in literature that inspection has bad records in finding accurate defects in software development. In this paper, we present a novel Fault Prediction Approach (FPA) based on the probabilistic model to improvise the software inspection to detect the defect accurately and cost effective for the quality software development. Application/ Improvement: Inspection is an effective activity to find the defects using empirical data in the initial stage of development. The proposed FPA investigate a probabilistic methods using modified Naive Bayes classification to estimate the probable faults in an experiment context to suggest fault controlling development. Further, the analysis investigates how FPA effectively identifying the faults during the inspection and impact in the quality development performance.

Keywords

Fault Prediction, Probabilistic Model, Software Inspection, Software Quality.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 139)

References


  • Shivaji ES, Whitehead J, Akella R, Kim S. Reducing features to improve code change-based bug prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2013Apr; 39(4):552–69.
  • Cinque M, Cotroneo D, Pecchia A. Event logs for the analysis of software failures: a rule-based approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2013 Jun; 39(6):806–21.
  • Parnas DL, Lawford M. The role of inspection in software quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2003 Aug; 29(8):674–6.
  • Porter A, Votta L, Basili V. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 1995 Jun; 21(6):563–75.
  • Zheng J, Williams L, Nagappan N, Snipes W, Hudepohl JP, Vouk MA. On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2006Apr; 32(4):1–14.
  • Liu S, Chen Y, Nagoya F , McDermid JA. Formal specification-based inspection for verification of programs. IEEE Transactions on software engineering. 2012 Sep–Oct; 38(5):1100–22.
  • Padberg F, Ragg T, Schoknecht R. Using machine learning for estimating the defect content after an inspection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2004 Jan; 30(1):17–28.
  • Ackerman A, Buchwald L, Lewski F. Software inspections: an effective verification process. IEEE Software. 1989; 6(3):31–36.
  • Laitenberger O, DeBaud JM. An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection. Journal of Systems and Software. 2000 Jan; 30(1):5–31.
  • Fagan ME. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal. 1976; 15(3):182–211.
  • Briand LC, Emam KE, Freimut BG, Laitenberger O. A comprehensive evaluation of capture-recapture models for estimating software defect content. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2000 Jun; 26(6):518–40.
  • Hamill M, Popstojanova KG. Common trends in software fault and failure data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2009 Jul–Aug; 35(4):484–96.
  • Bush W, Pincus J, Sielaff D. A static analyzer for finding dynamic programming errors. Journal of Software: Practice and Experience. 2000 Jun; 30(7):775–802.
  • Suma V, Nair TRG. Effective defect prevention approach in software process for achieving better quality levels. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2008 Aug; 45:1–5.
  • Challagulla V, Bastani F, Yen I, Paul R. Empirical assessment of machine learning based software defect prediction techniques. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems; TA; 2005. p. 263–70.
  • Johnson PM, Tjahjono D. Assessing software review meetings: a controlled experimental study using CSRS[Internet]. 1996 [cited 1996 Jun]. Available from: csdl.ics.hawaii.edu.
  • Chang CP, Chu CP. Defect prevention in software processes: An action based approach. The Journal of Systems and Software. 2007; 80(4):559–70.
  • Hovemeyer D, Pugh W. Finding bugs is easy. Proceedings of Conference in Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOSPLA) Companion; 2004. p. 132–5.
  • Basili VR, Green S, Laitenberger O, Lanubile F, Shull F, Soerumgaard S, Zelkowitz M. The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering journal. 1996; 1(2):133–64.
  • Sathyaraj R, Prabu S. An approach for software fault prediction to measure the quality of different prediction methodologies using software metrics. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Dec; 8(35). Doi no: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i35/73717.
  • Paramasivan R, Santhi K. APPFPA based best compromised solution for dynamic economic emission dispatch. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Feb; 9(6). Doi no:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i6/81015.
  • Kang SJ, Lee KM, Lee KM. Context-aware abnormality monitoring service for care-needing persons using a probabilistic model. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Jun; 9(24). Doi no: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i24/96112.
  • Kim YY, Kim MH. What are software developers and medical expert’s priorities for adopting a healthcare software platform? Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Jun; 9(24). Doi no:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i24/96018.
  • Ramasamy S, Kumaran AMJM. Dynamically weighted combination of fault - based software reliability growth models. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Jun; 9(22). Doi no:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i22/93967.
  • Samuel S, Kovalan A. A design level optimization approach for functional paradigm software designs considering low resource devices development. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016 Jun; 9(21). Doi no:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i21/95208.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.