meneal
commented
8 years ago I'm happy to go with any of these, but I think I favor the personalized defect prediction per developer paper. Seems like it would add something completely different than the other papers we've looked at so far. That said, like I noted in the other thread, I'm not sure whether we even need to do this or not.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Alexander Sobran notifications@github.com wrote:
For the next paper I suggest we choose one of these 3:
This one just sounds awesome because of the transfer learning approach, pretty much making it possible to predict defects in brand new projects: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486839
This one may be good as it summarizes much of what we read and will be useful as we write out the final paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486846
This one seems interesting as it splits defect prediction per developer to have a defect prediction model for each developer: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6693087&tag=1
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LambdaConglomerate/x9115lam/issues/19.
ghost
aisobran
For the next paper I suggest we choose one of these 3:
This one just sounds awesome because of the transfer learning approach, pretty much making it possible to predict defects in brand new projects: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486839
This one may be good as it summarizes much of what we read and will be useful as we write out the final paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486846
This one seems interesting as it splits defect prediction per developer to have a defect prediction model for each developer: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6693087&tag=1