Background--Self-evidently empirical analyses rely upon the quality of their data. Likewise, replications rely upon accurate reporting and using the same rather than similar versions of datasets. In recent years, there has been much interest in using machine learners to classify software modules into defect-prone and not defect-prone categories. The publicly available NASA datasets have been extensively used as part of this research. Objective--This short note investigates the extent to which published analyses based on the NASA defect datasets are meaningful and comparable. Method--We analyze the five studies published in the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering since 2007 that have utilized these datasets and compare the two versions of the datasets currently in use. Results--We find important differences between the two versions of the datasets, implausible values in one dataset and generally insufficient detail documented on dataset preprocessing. Conclusions--It is recommended that researchers 1) indicate the provenance of the datasets they use, 2) report any preprocessing in sufficient detail to enable meaningful replication, and 3) invest effort in understanding the data prior to applying machine learners.

Much current software defect prediction work focuses on the number of defects remaining in a software system. In this paper, we present association rule mining based methods to predict defect associations and defect correction effort. This is to help developers detect software defects and assist project managers in allocating testing resources more effectively. We applied the proposed methods to the SEL defect data consisting of more than 200 projects over more than 15 years. The results show that, for defect association prediction, the accuracy is very high and the false-negative rate is very low. Likewise, for the defect correction effort prediction, the accuracy for both defect isolation effort prediction and defect correction effort prediction are also high. We compared the defect correction effort prediction method with other types of methods - PART, C4.5, and Naive Bayes - and show that accuracy has been improved by at least 23 percent. We also evaluated the impact of support and confidence levels on prediction accuracy, false-negative rate, false-positive rate, and the number of rules. We found that higher support and confidence levels may not result in higher prediction accuracy, and a sufficient number of rules is a precondition for high prediction accuracy.