Software Failure Prediction and Efficiency Optimization Using AI/ML Techniques

Software reliability remains a major concern in modern software engineering due to the increasing complexity of software systems and the rapid pace of development. Software Failure Prediction (SFP) aims to identify fault-prone modules before deployment, enabling organizations to reduce maintenance costs and improve system quality. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques provide data-driven approaches for analyzing software metrics, defect repositories, and execution logs to predict failures. This review examines AI/ML-based approaches for software failure prediction and efficiency optimization, with explicit attention to benchmark datasets, dataset quality, preprocessing, class imbalance, feature selection, model families, validation strategies, and evaluation measures. Representative NASA and PROMISE/Jureczko datasets are characterized in terms of software-unit type, metric families, binary defect labels, and imbalance. The review emphasizes Precision, Recall, F1-score, ROC-AUC, and MCC in addition to accuracy and compares traditional ML, ensemble, and deep-learning approaches. It further discusses missing data, concept drift, and cross-project prediction as key factors affecting real-world generalization. The analysis indicates that no single model is universally optimal; robust software failure prediction requires dataset-aware preprocessing, leakage-safe validation, imbalance-aware evaluation, and an explicit trade-off among predictive performance, computational efficiency, and interpretability.

NA

1. M. Shepperd, Q. Song, Z. Sun, and C. Mair, "Data Quality: Some Comments on the NASA Software Defect Data Sets," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1208-1215, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2013.11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. C. Tantithamthavorn, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, "The Impact of Class Rebalancing Techniques on the Performance and Interpretation of Defect Prediction Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1200-1219, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2018.2876537. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, "Automated Parameter Optimization of Classification Techniques for Defect Prediction Models," Proceedings of ICSE, 2016. doi: 10.1145/2884781.2884857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. M. M. Ozturk et al., "Which type of metrics are useful to deal with class imbalance in software defect prediction?" Information and Software Technology, vol. 92, pp. 17-29, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.07.004. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. N. E. Fenton and M. Neil, "A Critique of Software Defect Prediction Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 675-689, 1999. doi: 10.1109/32.815326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. S. Lessmann, B. Baesens, C. Mues, and S. Pietsch, "Benchmarking Classification Models for Software Defect Prediction: A Proposed Framework and Novel Findings," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 485-496, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2008.35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, "An Empirical Comparison of Model Validation Techniques for Defect Prediction Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-18, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2016.2584050. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. F. Zhang, A. E. Hassan, S. McIntosh, and Y. Zou, "The Use of Summation to Aggregate Software Metrics Hinders the Performance of Defect Prediction Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 476-491, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2016.2599161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. J. Jiarpakdee, C. Tantithamthavorn, H. K. Dam, and J. Grundy, "An Empirical Study of Model-Agnostic Techniques for Defect Prediction Models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 166-185, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2020.2982385. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. M. Shepperd, D. Bowes, and T. Hall, "Researcher Bias: The Use of Machine Learning in Software Defect Prediction," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 603-616, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2014.2322358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. B. Ghotra, S. McIntosh, and A. E. Hassan, "Revisiting the Impact of Classification Techniques on the Performance of Defect Prediction Models," Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2015, pp. 789-800. doi: 10.1109/ICSE.2015.91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, "Automated Parameter Optimization of Classification Techniques for Defect Prediction Models," Proceedings of ICSE, 2016. doi: 10.1145/2884781.2884857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. T. Hall, S. Beecham, D. Bowes, D. Gray, and S. Counsell, "A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1276-1304, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. C. Catal and B. Diri, "A Systematic Review of Software Fault Prediction Studies," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 7346-7354, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. T. Menzies, J. Greenwald, and A. Frank, "Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 2-13, 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. D. Radjenović, M. Heričko, R. Torkar, and A. Živkovič, "Software Fault Prediction Metrics: A Systematic Literature Review," Information and Software Technology, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1397-1418, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. J. Nam, W. Fu, S. Kim, T. Menzies, and L. Tan, "Heterogeneous Defect Prediction," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 874-896, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Y. Kamei et al., "A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Just-In-Time Quality Assurance," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 757-773, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. T. Zimmermann, N. Nagappan, H. Gall, E. Giger, and B. Murphy, "Cross-Project Defect Prediction: A Large Scale Experiment on Data vs. Domain vs. Process," Proceedings of ESEC/FSE, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet