We use cookies to improve your experience with our site.
Advanced Search
Volume 34 Issue 5
August  2019
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Related Articles
Supplements
Xiang Chen, Dun Zhang, Zhan-Qi Cui, Qing Gu, Xiao-Lin Ju. DP-Share: Privacy-Preserving Software Defect Prediction Model Sharing Through Differential Privacy[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2019, 34(5): 1020-1038. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-019-1958-0
Citation: Xiang Chen, Dun Zhang, Zhan-Qi Cui, Qing Gu, Xiao-Lin Ju. DP-Share: Privacy-Preserving Software Defect Prediction Model Sharing Through Differential Privacy[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2019, 34(5): 1020-1038. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-019-1958-0
shu

DP-Share: Privacy-Preserving Software Defect Prediction Model Sharing Through Differential Privacy

  • 1 School of Information Science and Technology, Nantong University, Nantong 226019, China;
    2 State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China;
    3 School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore;
    4 Computer School, Beijing Information Science and Technology University, Beijing 100101, China

Funds: This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61702041 and 61872263, the Open Project of State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology at Nanjing University under Grant No. KFKT2019B14, the Science and Technology Project of Beijing Municipal Education Commission under Grant No. KM201811232016, the Nantong Application Research Plan under Grant No. JC2018134, and Jiangsu Government Scholarship for Overseas Studies.
More Information
  • Author Bio:

    Xiang Chen received his B.S. degree in information management and information system from Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, in 2002. Then he received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in computer software and theory from Nanjing University, Nanjing, in 2008 and 2011 respectively. He is with the School of Information Science and Technology at Nantong University, Nantong, as an associate professor. His research interests are mainly in software maintenance and software testing, such as software defect prediction, security vulnerability prediction, combinatorial testing, regression testing, and software fault localization. He has published over 40 papers in referred journals or conferences, including Information and Software Technology, Journal of Systems and Software, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Software Quality Journal, Journal of Computer Science and Technology, COMPSAC, APSEC and SAC, etc.

  • Received Date: November 28, 2018
  • Revised Date: April 02, 2019
  • Published Date: August 30, 2019
    Abstract
  • In current software defect prediction (SDP) research, most previous empirical studies only use datasets provided by PROMISE repository and this may cause a threat to the external validity of previous empirical results. Instead of SDP dataset sharing, SDP model sharing is a potential solution to alleviate this problem and can encourage researchers in the research community and practitioners in the industrial community to share more models. However, directly sharing models may result in privacy disclosure, such as model inversion attack. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to apply differential privacy (DP) to privacy-preserving SDP model sharing and then propose a novel method DP-Share, since DP mechanisms can prevent this attack when the privacy budget is carefully selected. In particular, DP-Share first performs data preprocessing for the dataset, such as over-sampling for minority instances (i.e., defective modules) and conducting discretization for continuous features to optimize privacy budget allocation. Then, it uses a novel sampling strategy to create a set of training sets. Finally it constructs decision trees based on these training sets and these decision trees can form a random forest (i.e., model). The last phase of DP-Share uses Laplace and exponential mechanisms to satisfy the requirements of DP. In our empirical studies, we choose nine experimental subjects from real software projects. Then, we use AUC (area under ROC curve) as the performance measure and holdout as our model validation technique. After privacy and utility analysis, we find that DP-Share can achieve better performance than a baseline method DF-Enhance in most cases when using the same privacy budget. Moreover, we also provide guidelines to effectively use our proposed method. Our work attempts to fill the research gap in terms of differential privacy for SDP, which can encourage researchers and practitioners to share more SDP models and then effectively advance the state of the art of SDP.
    • FullText(HTML)
    • References (59)
  • [1]
    Hall T, Beecham S, Bowes D, Gray D, Counsell S. A systematic literature review on fault prediction performance in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2012, 38(6):1276-1304.
    [2]
    Kamei Y, Shihab E. Defect prediction:Accomplishments and future challenges. In Proc. the 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, March 2016, pp.33-45.
    [3]
    Fredrikson M, Jha S, Ristenpart T. Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Proc. the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, October 2015, pp.1322-1333.
    [4]
    Hosseini S, Turhan B, Gunarathna D. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on cross project defect prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2019, 45(2):111-147.
    [5]
    Dwork C. Differential privacy. In Proc. the 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, July 2006, pp.1-12.
    [6]
    Zhu T, Li G, Zhou W, Yu P S. Differentially private data publishing and analysis:A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2017, 29(8):1619-1638.
    [7]
    Friedman A, Schuster A. Data mining with differential privacy. In Proc. the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, July 2010, pp.493-502.
    [8]
    Chawla N V, Bowyer K W, Hall L O, Kegelmeyer W P. SMOTE:Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2002, 16(1):321-357.
    [9]
    Fayyad U. Multi-interval discretization of continuousvalued attributes for classification learning. In Proc. the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 1993, pp.1022-1027.
    [10]
    Patil A, Singh S. Differential private random forest. In Proc. the 2014 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, September 2014, pp.2623-2630.
    [11]
    Zhang D, Chen X, Cui Z, Ju X. Software defect prediction model sharing under differential privacy. In Proc. the 2018 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart City Innovation, October 2018, pp.1547-1554.
    [12]
    Tantithamthavorn C, Hassan A E. An experience report on defect modelling in practice:Pitfalls and challenges. In Proc. the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering:Software Engineering in Practice, May 2018, pp.286-295.
    [13]
    Chen X, Zhao Y, Wang Q, Yuan Z. MULTI:Multi-objective effort-aware just-in-time software defect prediction. Information and Software Technology, 2018, 93:1-13.
    [14]
    Radjenovic D, Hericko M, Torkar R, Zivkovic A. Software fault prediction metrics:A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 2013, 55(8):1397-1418.
    [15]
    Peters F, Menzies T. Privacy and utility for defect prediction:Experiments with MORPH. In Proc. the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, June 2012, pp.189-199.
    [16]
    Weyuker E J, Ostrand T J, Bell R M. Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Using the number of developers to enhance defect prediction models. Empirical Software Engineering, 2008, 13(5):539-559.
    [17]
    Peters F, Menzies T, Gong L, Zhang H. Balancing privacy and utility in cross-company defect prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2013, 39(8):1054-1068.
    [18]
    Peters F, Menzies T, Layman L. LACE2:Better privacypreserving data sharing for cross project defect prediction. In Proc. the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2015, pp.801-811.
    [19]
    Fan Y, Lv C, Zhang X, Zhou G, Zhou Y. The utility challenge of privacy-preserving data-sharing in cross-company defect prediction:An empirical study of the CLIFF & MORPH algorithm. In Proc. International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, September 2017, pp.80-90.
    [20]
    Blum A, Dwork C, McSherry F, Nissim K. Practical privacy:The SuLQ framework. In Proc. the 24th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 2005, pp.128-138.
    [21]
    Dwork C. Differential privacy:A survey of results. In Proc. the 5th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, April 2008, pp.1-19.
    [22]
    Dwork C. A firm foundation for private data analysis. Communications of the ACM, 2011, 54(1):86-95.
    [23]
    McSherry F, Talwar K. Mechanism design via differential privacy. In Proc. the 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, October 2007, pp.94-103.
    [24]
    McSherry F D. Privacy integrated queries:An extensible platform for privacy-preserving data analysis. In Proc. the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, June 2009, pp.19-30.
    [25]
    Tan M, Tan L, Dara S, Mayeux C. Online defect prediction for imbalanced data. In Proc. the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2015, pp.99-108.
    [26]
    Bennin K E, Keung J, Phannachitta P, Monden A, Mensah S. MAHAKIL:Diversity based oversampling approach to alleviate the class imbalance issue in software defect prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2018, 44(6):534-550.
    [27]
    Liu M, Miao L, Zhang D. Two-stage cost-sensitive learning for software defect prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2014, 63(2):676-686.
    [28]
    Wang S, Yao X. Using class imbalance learning for software defect prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2013, 62(2):434-443.
    [29]
    Öztürk M M. Which type of metrics are useful to deal with class imbalance in software defect prediction? Information and Software Technology, 2017, 92:17-29.
    [30]
    He H, Garcia E A. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2009, 21(9):1263-1284.
    [31]
    García S, Luengo J, Sáez J A, López V, Herrera F. A survey of discretization techniques:Taxonomy and empirical analysis in supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2013, 25(4):734-750.
    [32]
    Hansen M H, Yu B. Model selection and the principle of minimum description length. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2001, 96(454):746-774.
    [33]
    Steinberg D. Cart:Classification and regression trees. In The Top Ten Algorithms in Data Mining, Wu X D, Kumer V (eds.), Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2009, pp.193-216.
    [34]
    Wang S, Liu T, Tan L. Automatically learning semantic features for defect prediction. In Proc. the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2016, pp.297-308.
    [35]
    Tantithamthavorn C, McIntosh S, Hassan A E, Matsumoto K. Automated parameter optimization of classification techniques for defect prediction models. In Proc. the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2016, pp.321-332.
    [36]
    Zhang F, Zheng Q, Zou Y, Hassan A E. Cross-project defect prediction using a connectivity-based unsupervised classifier. In Proc. the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2016, pp.309-320.
    [37]
    He P, Li B, Liu X, Chen J, Ma Y. An empirical study on software defect prediction with a simplified metric set. Information and Software Technology, 2015, 59:170-190.
    [38]
    Sayyad Shirabad J, Menzies T J. The PROMISE repository of softare engineering databases. Technical Report, School of Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa. http://promise.site.upttawa.ca/SERepsiting, Aug. 2018.
    [39]
    Jureczko M, Madeyski L. Towards identifying software project clusters with regard to defect prediction. In Proc. the 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, September 2010, Article No. 9.
    [40]
    Chidamber S R, Kemerer C F. A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1994, 20(6):476-493.
    [41]
    Zhang Y, Lo D, Xia X, Sun J. An empirical study of classifier combination for cross-project defect prediction. In Proc. the 39th IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, Volume 2, July 2015, pp.264-269.
    [42]
    Liu W, Liu S, Gu Q, Chen J, Chen X, Chen D. Empirical studies of a two-stage data preprocessing approach for software fault prediction. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2016, 65(1):38-53.
    [43]
    Liu S, Chen X, Liu W, Chen J, Gu Q, Chen D. FECAR:A feature selection framework for software defect prediction. In Proc. the 38th IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, July 2014, pp.426-435.
    [44]
    Tantithamthavorn C, McIntosh S, Hassan A E, Matsumoto K. An empirical comparison of model validation techniques for defect prediction models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2017, 43(1):1-18.
    [45]
    Dwork C, Feldman V, Hardt M, Pitassi T, Reingold O, Roth A. The reusable holdout:Preserving validity in adaptive data analysis. Science, 2015, 349(6248):636-638.
    [46]
    Shivaji S, Whitehead E J, Akella R, Kim S. Reducing features to improve code change-based bug prediction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2013, 39(4):552-569.
    [47]
    Herbold S, Trautsch A, Grabowski J. A comparative study to benchmark cross-project defect prediction approaches. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2018, 44(9):811-833.
    [48]
    Pan S J, Yang Q. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2010, 22(10):1345-1359.
    [49]
    Wu F, Jing X Y, Sun Y, Sun J, Huang L, Cui F, Sun Y. Cross-project and within-project semisupervised software defect prediction:A unified approach. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2018, 67(2):581-597.
    [50]
    Jing X Y, Wu F, Dong X, Xu B. An improved SDA based defect prediction framework for both within project and cross-project class-imbalance problems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2017, 43(4):321-339.
    [51]
    Ni C, Liu W S, Chen X, Gu Q, Chen D X, Huang Q G. A cluster based feature selection method for cross-project software defect prediction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2017, 32(6):1090-1107.
    [52]
    Krishna R, Menzies T, Fu W. Too much automation? The bellwether effect and its implications for transfer learning. In Proc. the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, August 2016, pp.122-131.
    [53]
    Ryu D, Jang J I, Baik J. A hybrid instance selection using nearest-neighbor for cross-project defect prediction. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2015, 30(5):969-980.
    [54]
    Hosseini S, Turhan B, Mantyla M. A benchmark study on the effectiveness of search-based data selection and feature selection for cross project defect prediction. Information and Software Technology, 2018, 95:296-312.
    [55]
    Moser R, Pedrycz W, Succi G. A comparative analysis of the efficiency of change metrics and static code attributes for defect prediction. In Proc. the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2008, pp.181-190.
    [56]
    Menzies T, Milton Z, Turhan B, Cukic B, Jiang Y, Bener A. Defect prediction from static code features:Current results, limitations, new approaches. Automated Software Engineering, 2010, 17(4):375-407.
    [57]
    Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution-A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 1997, 11(4):341-359.
    [58]
    Agrawal A, Menzies T. Is "better data" better than "better data miners"?:On the benefits of tuning SMOTE for defect prediction. In Proc. the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2018, pp.1050-1061.
    [59]
    Chen X, Zhang D, Zhao Y, Cui Z, Ni C. Software defect number prediction:Unsupervised vs supervised methods. Information and Software Technology, 2019, 106:161-181.
    • Relative Articles

  • Related Articles

    [1]Xiang-Jun Liu, Ping Yu, Xiao-Xing Ma. An Empirical Study on Automated Test Generation Tools for Java: Effectiveness and Challenges[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2024, 39(3): 715-736. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-023-1935-5
    [2]Wen-Jie Li, Jun Ma, Yan-Yan Jiang, Chang Xu, Xiao-Xing Ma. Understanding and Detecting Inefficient Image Displaying Issues in Android Apps[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2024, 39(2): 434-459. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-022-1670-3
    [3]Que-Ping Kong, Zi-Yan Wang, Yuan Huang, Xiang-Ping Chen, Xiao-Cong Zhou, Zi-Bin Zheng, Gang Huang. Characterizing and Detecting Gas-Inefficient Patterns in Smart Contracts[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2022, 37(1): 67-82. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-021-1674-4
    [4]Yi-Xuan Tang, Zhi-Lei Ren, He Jiang, Xiao-Chen Li, Wei-Qiang Kong. An Empirical Comparison Between Tutorials and Crowd Documentation of Application Programming Interface[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2021, 36(4): 856-876. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-020-0042-0
    [5]Yong-Hao Wu, Zheng Li, Yong Liu, Xiang Chen. FATOC: Bug Isolation Based Multi-Fault Localization by Using OPTICS Clustering[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2020, 35(5): 979-998. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-020-0549-4
    [6]Mohammed Alqmase, Mohammad Alshayeb, Lahouari Ghouti. Threshold Extraction Framework for Software Metrics[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2019, 34(5): 1063-1078. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-019-1960-6
    [7]Zhou Xu, Shuai Pang, Tao Zhang, Xia-Pu Luo, Jin Liu, Yu-Tian Tang, Xiao Yu, Lei Xue. Cross Project Defect Prediction via Balanced Distribution Adaptation Based Transfer Learning[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2019, 34(5): 1039-1062. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-019-1959-z
    [8]Chao Ni, Wang-Shu Liu, Xiang Chen, Qing Gu, Dao-Xu Chen, Qi-Guo Huang. A Cluster Based Feature Selection Method for Cross-Project Software Defect Prediction[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2017, 32(6): 1090-1107. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-017-1785-0
    [9]Xin-Li Yang, David Lo, Xin Xia, Zhi-Yuan Wan, Jian-Ling Sun. What Security Questions Do Developers Ask? A Large-Scale Study of Stack Overflow Posts[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2016, 31(5): 910-924. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-016-1672-0
    [10]Giuseppe Lami, Robert W. Ferguson. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Automation on the Requirements Analysis Process[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2007, 22(3): 338-347.
    • Supplements (1)

  • Others

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(17)

    1. Elham Shamsinejad, Touraj Banirostam, Mir Mohsen Pedram, et al. Representing a Model for the Anonymization of Big Data Stream Using In-Memory Processing. Annals of Data Science, 2025, 12(1): 223. DOI:10.1007/s40745-024-00556-x
    2. Tawseef Ahmad Mir, Aadil Ahmad Lawaye. Naïve Bayes classifier for Kashmiri word sense disambiguation. Sādhanā, 2024, 49(3) DOI:10.1007/s12046-024-02551-7
    3. Hassan Raza, Waseem Shahzad. End to End Urdu Abstractive Text Summarization With Dataset and Improvement in Evaluation Metric. IEEE Access, 2024, 12: 40311. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3377463
    4. Muralikrishna S N, Raghurama Holla, Harivinod N, et al. Cross-Lingual Short-Text Semantic Similarity for Kannada–English Language Pair. Computers, 2024, 13(9): 236. DOI:10.3390/computers13090236
    5. Marwa E. Saleh, Yaser M. Wazery, Abdelmgeid A. Ali. A systematic literature review of deep learning-based text summarization: Techniques, input representation, training strategies, mechanisms, datasets, evaluation, and challenges. Expert Systems with Applications, 2024, 252: 124153. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124153
    6. Wubetu Barud Demilie, Danfeng Hong. Comparative Analysis of Automated Text Summarization Techniques: The Case of Ethiopian Languages. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2022, 2022: 1. DOI:10.1155/2022/3282127
    7. Xuan Sheng, Zhaoyang Han, Piji Li, et al. A Survey on Backdoor Attack and Defense in Natural Language Processing. 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), DOI:10.1109/QRS57517.2022.00086
    8. Verónica Neri-Mendoza, Yulia Ledeneva, René Arnulfo García-Hernández, et al. Pattern Recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-07750-0_24
    9. A. Poornima, Rashmi Agarwal, J. B. Simha. Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Intelligence. Algorithms for Intelligent Systems, DOI:10.1007/978-981-97-3526-6_32
    10. Mustapha Benbarka, Moulay Abdellah Kassimi. Arabic Language Processing: From Theory to Practice. Communications in Computer and Information Science, DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-79164-2_15
    11. Richard G. Mayopu, Long-Sheng Chen. Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Communications in Computer and Information Science, DOI:10.1007/978-981-97-1711-8_19
    12. Arief Agus Sukmandhani, Arief Ramadhan, Edi Abdurachman, et al. Single and Multi-Documents Text Summarization Technologies for Natural Language Processing: a Systematic Review on Method and Dataset. 2022 IEEE Creative Communication and Innovative Technology (ICCIT), DOI:10.1109/ICCIT55355.2022.10118868
    13. Minghui Xia, Yahui Zhao, Rongyi Cui, et al. Research on unsupervised MDS technology based on graph structure. 2023 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications Technology and Computer Science (ACCTCS), DOI:10.1109/ACCTCS58815.2023.00110
    14. Meirong Lin. Design and implementation of batch file intelligent summary assistant based on AIGC+RPA. Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Electronic Information Technology and Computer Engineering, DOI:10.1145/3711129.3711224
    15. Arief Agus Sukmandhani, Yulyani Arifin, Muhammad Zarlis, et al. Recent Trends for Text Summarization in Scientific Documents. 2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Computing, Engineering and Design (ICCED), DOI:10.1109/ICCED60214.2023.10425025
    16. Mustapha Benbarka, Moulay Abdellah Kassimi. TOPICScore: Evaluating Automatic Text Summarization Using Embeddings, Occurrences, and Topic Detection. 2024 4th International Conference on Innovative Research in Applied Science, Engineering and Technology (IRASET), DOI:10.1109/IRASET60544.2024.10548450
    17. Sitender, Sangeeta, N. Sudha Sushma, et al. Proceedings of Data Analytics and Management. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, DOI:10.1007/978-981-19-7615-5_37

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (72) PDF downloads (11) Cited by(17)
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return