Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2020
DOI: 10.1145/3383219.3383268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explainable Priority Assessment of Software-Defects using Categorical Features at SAP HANA

Abstract: We want to automate priority assessment of software defects. To do so we provide a tool which uses an explainability-driven framework and classical machine learning algorithms to keep the decisions transparent. Differing from other approaches we only use objective and categorical fields from the bug tracking system as features. This makes our approach lightweight and extremely fast. We perform binary classification with priority labels corresponding to deadlines. Additionally, we evaluate the tool on real data… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Assessing the risk of a software defect manually via its report is an expensive task and the assessment results are unreliable. Therefore, we apply, among others, machine learning (ML) techniques (support vector machines, decision trees) to automate the risk assessment based on available data about bugs [51]. Similarly, we use ML-based approaches to classify issues for root cause analysis while replaying recorded workload data [47].…”
Section: Risk-based Quality Assurancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assessing the risk of a software defect manually via its report is an expensive task and the assessment results are unreliable. Therefore, we apply, among others, machine learning (ML) techniques (support vector machines, decision trees) to automate the risk assessment based on available data about bugs [51]. Similarly, we use ML-based approaches to classify issues for root cause analysis while replaying recorded workload data [47].…”
Section: Risk-based Quality Assurancementioning
confidence: 99%