Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Investigating the use of moving windows to improve software effort prediction: a replicated study
UNSW Canberra, Australia.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
2017 (English)In: Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, ISSN 1382-3256, E-ISSN 1573-7616, Vol. 22, no 2, 716-767 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

To date most research in software effort estimation has not taken chronology into account when selecting projects for training and validation sets. A chronological split represents the use of a project’s starting and completion dates, such that any model that estimates effort for a new project p only uses as its training set projects that have been completed prior to p’s starting date. A study in 2009 (“S3”) investigated the use of chronological split taking into account a project’s age. The research question investigated was whether the use of a training set containing only the most recent past projects (a “moving window” of recent projects) would lead to more accurate estimates when compared to using the entire history of past projects completed prior to the starting date of a new project. S3 found that moving windows could improve the accuracy of estimates. The study described herein replicates S3 using three different and independent data sets. Estimation models were built using regression, and accuracy was measured using absolute residuals. The results contradict S3, as they do not show any gain in estimation accuracy when using windows for effort estimation. This is a surprising result: the intuition that recent data should be more helpful than old data for effort estimation is not supported. Several factors, which are discussed in this paper, might have contributed to such contradicting results. Some of our future work entails replicating this work using other datasets, to understand better when using windows is a suitable choice for software companies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer-Verlag New York, 2017. Vol. 22, no 2, 716-767 p.
Keyword [en]
Computer software, Chronological splits; Chronological splitting; Effort Estimation; Moving window; Regression based estimation models; Research questions; Software effort estimation; Software effort prediction, Software engineering
National Category
Computer Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-13084DOI: 10.1007/s10664-016-9446-4ISI: 000399891400004ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84983399519OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-13084DiVA: diva2:1033185
Available from: 2016-10-06 Created: 2016-10-03 Last updated: 2017-05-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mendes, Emilia
By organisation
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Empirical Software Engineering
Computer Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 24 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf