Despite decades of research, Software Engineering (SE) lacks widely accepted models (that offer precise quantitative stable predictions) about what factors most influence software quality. This paper provides a promising result showing such stable models can be generated using a new transfer learning framework called "STABILIZER". Given a tree of recursively clustered projects (using project meta-data), STABILIZER promotes a model upwards if it performs best in the lower clusters (stopping when the promoted model performs worse than the models seen at a lower level).

Background: Machine learning techniques have been widely used and demonstrate promising performance in many software security tasks such as software vulnerability prediction. However, the class ratio within software vulnerability datasets is often highly imbalanced (since the percentage of observed vulnerability is usually very low). Goal: To help security practitioners address software security data class imbalanced issues and further help build better prediction models with resampled datasets. Method: We introduce an approach called Dazzle which is an optimized version of conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks with gradient penalty (cWGAN-GP). Dazzle explores the architecture hyperparameters of cWGAN-GP with a novel optimizer called Bayesian Optimization. We use Dazzle to generate minority class samples to resample the original imbalanced training dataset. Results: We evaluate Dazzle with three software security datasets, i.e., Moodle vulnerable files, Ambari bug reports, and JavaScript function code. We show that Dazzle is practical to use and demonstrates promising improvement over existing state-of-the-art oversampling techniques such as SMOTE (e.g., with an average of about 60% improvement rate over SMOTE in recall among all datasets). Conclusion: Based on this study, we would suggest the use of optimized GANs as an alternative method for security vulnerability data class imbalanced issues.

Many methods have been proposed to estimate how much effort is required to build and maintain software. Much of that research tries to recommend a single method – an approach that makes the dubious assumption that one method can handle the diversity of software project data. To address this drawback, we apply a configuration technique called “ROME” (Rapid Optimizing Methods for Estimation), which uses sequential model-based optimization (SMO) to find what configuration settings of effort estimation techniques work best for a particular data set. We test this method using data from 1161 traditional waterfall projects and 120 contemporary projects (from GitHub). In terms of magnitude of relative error and standardized accuracy, we find that ROME achieves better performance than the state-of-the-art methods for both traditional waterfall and contemporary projects. In addition, we conclude that we should not recommendonemethod for estimation. Rather, it is better to search through a wide range of different methods to find what works best for the local data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest effort estimation experiment yet attempted and the only one to test its methods on traditional waterfall and contemporary projects.