A baseline model for software effort estimation

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Whigham, Peter A ^a   Owen, Caitlin A ^a   MacDonell, Stephen G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Baseline model; Transformed linear model

Indexed keywords

LIFE CYCLE;

BASELINE MODELS; COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT; EFFORT PREDICTION; ERROR MEASUREMENTS; LINEAR MODELING; PARAMETER-TUNING; REFERENCE IMPLEMENTATION; SOFTWARE EFFORT ESTIMATION;

FORECASTING;

EID: 84930149397     PISSN: 1049331X     EISSN: 15577392     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/2738037     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. B. Adrangi and W. Harrison. 1987. Effort estimation in a system development project. J. Syst. Manag. 38, 21-23.
2. A. J. Albrecht and J. E. Gaffney. 1983. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. SE9, 639-648.
3. S. Aljahdali and A. Sheta. 2013. Evolving software effort estimation models using multigene symbolic regression genetic programming. Int. J. Adv. Res. Artif. Intell. 2, 52-57.
4. V. K. Bardsiri, D. N. Jawawi, S. Z. Hashim, and E. Khatibi. 2014. A flexible method to estimate the software development effort based on the classification of projects and localization of comparisons. Empir. Softw. Engin. 19, 857-884.
5. th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'03). 43-50.
6. B. W. Boehm. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall.
7. th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'13). ACM Press, New York, 171-176.
8. L. Breiman. 1993. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall.
9. nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'00). ACM Press, New York, 377-386.
10. Z. Chen, T. Menzies, D. Port, and B. Boehm. 2005. Feature subset selection can improve software cost estimation accuracy. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Engin. Notes 30, 1-6.
11. N.-H. Chiu and S.-J. Huang. 2007. The adjusted analogy-based software effort estimation based on similarity distances. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 628-640.
12. F. Collopy. 2007. Difficulty and complexity as factors in software effort estimation. Int. J. Forecast. 23, 3, 469-471.
13. K. Dejaeger, W. Verbeke, D. Martens, and B. Baesens. 2012. Data mining techniques for software effort estimation: A comparative study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 38, 375-397.
14. E. Dimitriadou, K. Hornik, F. Leisch, D. Meyer, and A. Weingessel. 2011. e1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics, TU Wien, R package version 1.6. http://cran. r-project.org/web/packages/e1071/index.html.
15. F. Ferrucci, M. Harman, and F. Sarro. 2014. Search-based software project management. In Software Project Management in a Changing World, G. Ruhe and C. Wohlin, Eds., Springer, 373-399.
16. G. R. Finnie, G. E. Wittig, and J.-M. Desharnais. 1997. A comparison of software effort estimation techniques: Using function points with neural networks, case-based reasoning and regression models. J. Syst. Softw. 39, 281-289.
17. A. Heiat. 2002. Comparison of artificial neural network and regression models for estimating software development effort. Inf. Softw. Technol. 44, 911-921.
18. G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer.
19. R. Jeffery, M. Ruhe, and I. Wieczorek. 2000. A comparative study of two software development cost modelling techniques using multi-organizational and company-specific data. Inf. Softw. Technol. 42, 1009-1016.
20. D. N. Joanes and C. A. Gill. 1998. Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis. The Statist. 47, 183-189.
21. M. Jorgensen and M. Shepperd. 2007. A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 33, 1, 33-53.
22. B. Kitchenham. 1992. Empirical studies of assumptions that underlie software cost-estimation models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 34, 211-218.
23. B. Kitchenham. 2002. The question of scale economies in software - Why cannot researchers agree? Inf. Softw. Technol. 44, 13-24.
24. th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE'09). ACM Press, New York, 1-5.
25. B. Kitchenham, E. Mendes, and G. Travassos. 2007. Cross versus within-company cost estimation studies: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 33, 316-329.
26. B. Kitchenham, S. L. Pfleeger, B. McColl, and S. Eagan. 2002. An empirical study of maintenance and development estimation accuracy. J. Syst. Softw. 64, 57-77.
27. E. Kocaguneli and T. Menzies. 2013. Software effort models should be assessed via leave-one-out validation. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 1879-1890.
28. S. G. MacDonell and M. J. Shepperd. 2003. Combining techniques to optimize effort predictions in software project management. J. Syst. Softw. 66, 91-98.
29. C. Mair, G. Kadoda, M. Lefley, K. Phalp, C. Schofield, M. Shepperd, and S. Webster. 2000. An investigation of machine learning based prediction systems. J. Syst. Softw. 53, 23-29.
30. C. Mair, M. Shepperd, and M. Jorgensen. 2005. An analysis of data sets used to train and validate cost prediction systems. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Engin. Notes 30, 1-6.
31. T. Menzies, B. Caglayan, Z. He, E. Kocaguneli, J. Krall, F. Peters, and B. Turhan. 2012. The PROMISE repository of empirical software engineering data. Tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, West Virginia University.
32. T. Menzies, Z. Chen, J. Hihn, and K. Lum. 2006. Selecting best practices for effort estimation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 32, 883-895.
33. T. Menzies and M. Shepperd. 2012. Special issue on repeatable results in software engineering prediction. Empir. Softw. Engin. 17, 1-17.
34. L. Minku and X. Yao. 2013. Software effort estimation as a multiobjective learning problem. ACM Trans. Softw. Engin. Methodol. 22, 4.
35. N. Mittas and L. Angelis. 2012. A permutation test based on regression error characteristic curves for software cost estimation models. Empir. Softw. Engin. 17, 34-61.
36. N. Mittas, I. Mamalikidis, and L. Angelis. 2015. A framework for comparing multiple cost estimation methods using an automated visualization toolkit. Inf. Softw. Technol. 57, 310-328.
37. I. Myrtveit and E. Stensrud. 2012. Validity and reliability of evaluation procedures in comparative studies of effort prediction models. Empir. Softw. Engin. 17, 23-32.
38. I. Myrtveit, E. Stensrud, and M. Shepperd. 2005. Reliability and validity in comparative studies of software prediction models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 31, 380-391.
39. E. A. Nelson. 1966. Management Handbook for the Estimation of Computer Programming Costs. Systems Development Corporation.
40. J. Neter, M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. McGraw-Hill.
41. H. Park and S. Baek. 2008. An empirical validation of a neural network model for software effort estimation. Expert Syst. Appl. 35, 929-936.
42. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R. http://www.rproject.org/foundation/.
43. B. Samson, D. Ellison, and P. Dugard. 1997. Software cost estimation using an Albus perceptron (CMAC). Inf. Softw. Technol. 39, 55-60.
44. M. Shepperd and G. Kadoda. 2001. Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 27, 1014-1021.
45. M. Shepperd and S. G. MacDonell. 2012. Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 820-827.
46. M. Shepperd and C. Schofield. 1997. Estimating software project effort using analogies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engin. 23, 736-743.
47. th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE'13). ACM Press, New York.
48. I. F. B. Tronto, J. D. S. Silva, and N. Santanna. 2006. Comparison of artificial neural network and regression models in software effort estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN'06). 771-776.
49. B. Turhan. 2012. On the dataset shift problem in software engineering prediction models. Empir. Softw. Engin. 17, 62-74.
50. th Ed. Springer.
51. G. Wittig and G. Finnie. 1997. Estimating software development effort with connectionist models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39, 469-476.