Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques

Like other sciences and engineering disciplines, software engineering requires a cycle of model building, experimentation, and learning. Experiments are valuable tools for all software engineers who are involved in evaluating and choosing between different methods, techniques, languages and tools. The purpose of Experimentation in Software Engineering is to introduce students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners to empirical studies in software engineering, using controlled experiments. The introduction to experimentation is provided through a process perspective, and the focus is on the steps that we have to go through to perform an experiment. The book is divided into three parts. The first part provides a background of theories and methods used in experimentation. Part II then devotes one chapter to each of the five experiment steps: scoping, planning, execution, analysis, and result presentation. Part III completes the presentation with two examples. Assignments and statistical material are provided in appendixes. Overall the book provides indispensable information regarding empirical studies in particular for experiments, but also for case studies, systematic literature reviews, and surveys. It is a revision of the authors book, which was published in 2000. In addition, substantial new material, e.g. concerning systematic literature reviews and case study research, is introduced. The book is self-contained and it is suitable as a course book in undergraduate or graduate studies where the need for empirical studies in software engineering is stressed. Exercises and assignments are included to combine the more theoretical material with practical aspects. Researchers will also benefit from the book, learning more about how to conduct empirical studies, and likewise practitioners may use it as a cookbook when evaluating new methods or techniques before implementing them in their organization.

Experimentation in Software Engineering

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

This paper presents the results of a study in which we empirically investigated the suite of object-oriented (OO) design metrics introduced in (Chidamber and Kemerer, 1994). More specifically, our goal is to assess these metrics as predictors of fault-prone classes and, therefore, determine whether they can be used as early quality indicators. This study is complementary to the work described in (Li and Henry, 1993) where the same suite of metrics had been used to assess frequencies of maintenance changes to classes. To perform our validation accurately, we collected data on the development of eight medium-sized information management systems based on identical requirements. All eight projects were developed using a sequential life cycle model, a well-known OO analysis/design method and the C++ programming language. Based on empirical and quantitative analysis, the advantages and drawbacks of these OO metrics are discussed. Several of Chidamber and Kemerer's OO metrics appear to be useful to predict class fault-proneness during the early phases of the life-cycle. Also, on our data set, they are better predictors than "traditional" code metrics, which can only be collected at a later phase of the software development processes.

/pdf/a-validation-of-object-oriented-design-metrics-as-quality-16egyd4zw9.pdf

A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators

[서평]「The Unified Modeling Language User Guide」

Metaheuristic techniques such as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and tabu search have found wide application in most areas of engineering. These techniques have also been applied in business, financial and economic modelling. Metaheuristics have been applied to three areas of software engineering: test data generation, module clustering and cost/effort prediction, yet there remain many software engineering problems which have yet to be tackled using metaheuristics. It is surprising that metaheuristics have not been more widely applied to software engineering; many problems in software engineering are characterised by precisely the features which make metaheuristics search applicable. In the paper it is argued that the features which make metaheuristics applicable for engineering and business applications outside software engineering also suggest that there is great potential for the exploitation of metaheuristics within software engineering. The paper briefly reviews the principal metaheuristic search techniques and surveys existing work on the application of metaheuristics to the three software engineering areas of test data generation, module clustering and cost/effort prediction. It also shows how metaheuristic search techniques can be applied to three additional areas of software engineering: maintenance/evolution system integration and requirements scheduling. The software engineering problem areas considered thus span the range of the software development process, from initial planning, cost estimation and requirements analysis through to integration, maintenance and evolution of legacy systems. The aim is to justify the claim that many problems in software engineering can be reformulated as search problems, to which metaheuristic techniques can be applied. The goal of the paper is to stimulate greater interest in metaheuristic search as a tool of optimisation of software engineering problems and to encourage the investigation and exploitation of these technologies in finding near optimal solutions to the complex constraint-based scenarios which arise so frequently in software engineering.

/pdf/reformulating-software-engineering-as-a-search-problem-36493jndeg.pdf

Reformulating software engineering as a search problem

A testability transformation is a source-to-source transformation that aims to improve the ability of a given test generation method to generate test data for the original program. We introduce testability transformation, demonstrating that it differs from traditional transformation, both theoretically and practically, while still allowing many traditional transformation rules to be applied. We illustrate the theory of testability transformation with an example application to evolutionary testing. An algorithm for flag removal is defined and results are presented from an empirical study which show how the algorithm improves both the performance of evolutionary test data generation and the adequacy level of the test data so-generated.

/pdf/testability-transformation-2po6cl49xh.pdf

Testability transformation

Ever growing population and progressive municipal business demands for constructing new buildings are known as the foremost contributor to greenhouse gasses. Therefore, improvement of energy efficiency of the building sector has become an essential target to reduce the amount of gas emission as well as fossil fuel consumption. One most effective approach to reducing CO2 emission and energy consumption with regards to new buildings is to consider energy efficiency at a very early design stage. On the other hand,efficient energy management and smart refurbishments can enhance energy performance of the existing stock. All these solutions entail accurate energy prediction for optimal decision making. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) in general and machine learning (ML) techniques in specific terms have been proposed for forecasting of building energy consumption and performance. This paper provides a substantial review on the four main ML approaches including artificial neural network, support vector machine, Gaussian-based regressions and clustering, which have commonly been applied in forecasting and improving building energy performance.

/pdf/machine-learning-for-estimation-of-building-energy-15lzdvkc3w.pdf

Machine learning for estimation of building energy consumption and performance: a review

This empirical research was undertaken as part of a multi-method programme of research to investigate unsupported claims made of object-oriented technology. A series of subject-based laboratory experiments, including an internal replication, tested the effect of inheritance depth on the maintainability of object-oriented software. Subjects were timed performing identical maintenance tasks on object-oriented software with a hierarchy of three levels of inheritance depth and equivalent object-based software with no inheritance. This was then replicated with more experienced subjects. In a second experiment of similar design, subjects were timed performing identical maintenance tasks on object-oriented software with a hierarchy of five levels of inheritance depth and the equivalent object-based software. The collected data showed that subjects maintaining object-oriented software with three levels of inheritance depth performed the maintenance tasks significantly quicker than those maintaining equivalent object-based software with no inheritance. In contrast, subjects maintaining the object-oriented software with five levels of inheritance depth took longer, on average, than the subjects maintaining the equivalent object-based software (although statistical significance was not obtained). Subjects' source code solutions and debriefing questionnaires provided some evidence suggesting subjects began to experience difficulties with the deeper inheritance hierarchy. It is not at all obvious that object-oriented software is going to be more maintainable in the long run. These findings are sufficiently important that attempts to verify the results should be made by independent researchers.

Evaluating inheritance depth on the maintainability of object-oriented software

Software inspection is one of the best methods of verifying software documents. Software inspection is a complex process, with many possible variations, most of which have received little or no evaluation. This paper reports on the evaluation of one component of the inspection process, detection aids, specifically using Scenario or Checklist approaches. The evaluation is by subject-based experimentation, and is currently one of three independent experiments on the same hypothesis. The paper describes the experimental process, the resulting analysis of the experimental data, and attempts to compare the results in this experiment with the other experiments. This replication is broadly supportive of the results from the original experiment, namely, that the Scenario approach is superior to the Checklist approach; and that the meeting component of a software inspection is not an effective defect detection mechanism. This experiment also tentatively proposes additional relationships between general academic performance and individual inspection performance; and between meeting loss and group inspection performance.

Marc Roper

Papers

Reformulating software engineering as a search problem

Testability transformation

Machine learning for estimation of building energy consumption and performance: a review

Evaluating inheritance depth on the maintainability of object-oriented software

Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists