The dearth of published empirical data on major industrial systems has been one of the reasons that software engineering has failed to establish a proper scientific basis. In this paper we hope to provide a small contribution to the body of empirical knowledge. We describe a number of results from a quantitative study of faults and failures in two releases of a major commercial system. We tested a range of basic software engineering hypotheses relating to: the Pareto principle of distribution of faults and failures; the use of early fault data to predict later fault and failure data; metrics for fault prediction; and benchmarking fault data. For example, we found strong evidence that a small number of modules contain most of the faults discovered in pre-release testing, and that a very small number of modules contain most of the faults discovered in operation. However, in neither case is this explained by the size or complexity of the modules. We found no evidence to support previous claims relating module size to fault density, nor did we find evidence that popular complexity metrics are good predictors of either fault-prone or failure-prone modules. We confirmed that the number of faults discovered in pre-release testing is an order of magnitude greater than the number discovered in 12 months of operational use. We also discovered fairly

What is it that makes software fail? In an empirical study of the post-release defect history of five Microsoft software systems, we found that failure-prone software entities are statistically correlated with code complexity measures. However, there is no single set of complexity metrics that could act as a universally best defect predictor. Using principal component analysis on the code metrics, we built regression models that accurately predict the likelihood of post-release defects for new entities. The approach can easily be generalized to arbitrary projects; in particular, predictors obtained from one project can also be significant for new, similar projects.

When first formulated in the early seventies, the laws of software evolution were, for a number of reasons, not widely accepted as relevant to software engineering practice. Over the years, they have gradually become recognised as providing useful inputs to understanding of the software process and have found their place in a number of software engineering curricula. Now eight in number, they have been supplemented by a Software Uncertainty Principle and a FEAST Hypothesis. Based on all these and on the results of the recent FEAST/1 and current FEAST/2 research projects, this paper develops and presents some fifty rules for application in software system process planning and management and indicates tools available or to be developed to support their application. The listing is structured according to the laws that encapsulate the observed phenomena and that lead to the recommended procedure. Each sub-list is preceded by a textual discussion providing at least some of the justificatio...

Software metrics as a subject area is over 30 years old, but it has barely penetrated into mainstream software engineering. A key reason for this is that most software metrics activities have not addressed their most important requirement: to provide information to support quantitative managerial decision-making during the software lifecycle. Good support for decision-making implies support for risk assessment and reduction. Yet traditional metrics approaches, often driven by regression-based models for cost estimation and defects prediction, provide little support for managers wishing to use measurement to analyse and minimise risk. The future for software metrics lies in using relatively simple existing metrics to build management decision-support tools that combine different aspects of software development and testing and enable managers to make many kinds of predictions, assessments and trade-offs during the software life-cycle. Our recommended approach is to handle the key factors...

Contemporary evidence suggests that most field faults in software applications are found in a smafi percentage of the software's components. This means that if these faulty software components can be detected early in the development project's life cycle, mitigating actions can be taken, such as a redesign. For object-oriented applications, prediction models using design metrics can be used to identify faulty classes early on. In this paper we report on a study that used object-oriented design metrics to construct such prediction models. The study used data collected from one version of a commercial Java application for constructing a prediction model. The model was then validated on a subsequent release of the same application. Our results indicate that the prediction model has a high accuracy. Furthermore, we found that an export coupling metric had the strongest association with faultproneness, indicating a structural feature that may be symptomatic of a class with a high probability of latent faults.

In this paper we present a comparative analysis of the predictive power of two different sets of metrics for defect prediction. We choose one set of product related and one set of process related software metrics and use them for classifying Java files of the Eclipse project as defective respective defect-free. Classification models are built using three common machine learners: logistic regression, Naïve Bayes, and decision trees. To allow different costs for prediction errors we perform cost-sensitive classification, which proves to be very successful:>75% percentage of correctly classified files, a recall of>80%, and a false positive rate <30%. Results indicate that for the Eclipse data, process metrics are more efficient defect predictors than code metrics. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.8 [Metrics]: Process metrics and product metrics. D.2.9 [Management]: Software quality assurance.

Software defect prediction strives to improve software quality and testing efficiency by constructing predictive classification models from code attributes to enable a timely identification of fault-prone modules. Several classification models have been evaluated for this task. However, due to inconsistent findings regarding the superiority of one classifier over another and the usefulness of metric-based classification in general, more research is needed to improve convergence across studies and further advance confidence in experimental results. We consider three potential sources for bias: comparing classifiers over one or a small number of proprietary data sets, relying on accuracy indicators that are conceptually inappropriate for software defect prediction and cross-study comparisons, and, finally, limited use of statistical testing procedures to secure empirical findings. To remedy these problems, a framework for comparative software defect prediction experiments is proposed and applied in a large-scale empirical comparison of 22 classifiers over 10 public domain data sets from the NASA Metrics Data repository. Overall, an appealing degree of predictive accuracy is observed, which supports the view that metric-based classification is useful. However, our results indicate that the importance of the particular classification algorithm may be less than previously assumed since no significant performance differences could be detected among the top 17 classifiers.

Abstract—Measurement of software security is a long standing challenge to the research community. At the same time, practical security metrics and measurements are essential for secure software development. Hence the need for metrics is more pressing now due to a growing demand for secure software. In this paper, we propose to use a software system’s attack surface measurement as an indicator of the system’s security. We formalize the notion of a system’s attack surface and introduce an attack surface metric to measure the attack surface in a systematic manner. Our measurement method is agnostic to a software system’s implementation language and is applicable to systems of all sizes; we demonstrate our method by measuring the attack surfaces of small desktop applications and large enterprise systems implemented in C and Java. We conducted three exploratory empirical studies to validate our method. Software developers can mitigate their software’s security risk by measuring and reducing their software’s attack surfaces. Our attack surface reduction approach complements software industry’s traditional code quality improvement approach for security risk mitigation and is useful in multiple phases of the software development lifecycle. Our collaboration with SAP demonstrates the use of our metric in the software development process.

Shifting the focus from software reliability to user-centred measures of dependability in complete software-based systems. Influencing design practice to facilitate dependability assessment. Propagating awareness of dependability issues and the use of existing, useful methods. Injecting some rigour in the use of process-related evidence for dependability assessment. Better understanding issues of diversity and variation as drivers of dependability. Bev Littlewood is founder-Director of the Centre for Software Reliability, and Professor of Software Engineering at City University, London. Prof Littlewood has worked for many years on problems associated with the modelling and evaluation of the dependability of software-based systems; he has published many papers in international journals and conference proceedings and has edited several books. Much of this work has been carried out in collaborative projects, including the successful EC-funded projects SHIP, PDCS, PDCS2, DeVa. He has been employed as a consultant to

In the last decade, empirical studies on object-oriented design metrics have shown some of them to be useful for predicting the fault-proneness of classes in object-oriented software systems. This research did not, however, distinguish among faults according to the severity of impact. It would be valuable to know how object-oriented design metrics and class fault-proneness are related when fault severity is taken into account. In this paper, we use logistic regression and machine learning methods to empirically investigate the usefulness of object-oriented design metrics, specifically, a subset of the Chidamber and Kemerer suite, in predicting faultproneness when taking fault severity into account. Our results, based on a public domain NASA data set, indicate that 1) most of these design metrics are statistically related to fault-proneness of classes across fault severity, and 2) the prediction capabilities of the investigated metrics greatly depend on the severity of faults. More specifically, these design metrics are able to predict low severity faults in fault-prone classes better than high severity faults in fault-prone classes.