# Credibility Based Imbalance Boosting Method for Software Defect Proneness Prediction
## 5 Experimental Results
### RQ1: How Effective Is CIB? How Much Improvement Can It Obtain Compared with the Baselines?
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Data** & **Our CIB** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MAHAKIL**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**AdaC2 [45]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AdaBoost**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SMOTE**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**RUS [35]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**None**} \\ \cline{1-1}  & **[44]** & & & & & & & \\ \hline CM1 & 28.3\(\pm\)5.1 \(\checkmark\) & 28.6\(\pm\)5.1 \(\checkmark\) & 18.9\(\pm\)6.1 \(\checkmark\) & 19.4\(\pm\)5.5 \(\checkmark\) & 30.8\(\pm\)4.7 \(\checkmark\) & 29.8\(\pm\)3.7 \(\checkmark\) & 20.4\(\pm\)7.6 \(\checkmark\) \\ KC1 & **44.3\(\pm\)**2.1 \(\checkmark\) & 41.4\(\pm\)1.9 \(\checkmark\) & 42.6\(\pm\)1.5 \(\checkmark\) & 41.7\(\pm\)1.8 \(\checkmark\) & 40.6\(\pm\)2.7 \(\checkmark\) & 43.3\(\pm\)2.2 \(\checkmark\) & 35.6\(\pm\)2.7 \(\checkmark\) \\ KC3 & **40.4\(\pm\)**4.7 \(\checkmark\) & 40.0\(\pm\)5.7 \(\checkmark\) & 32.6\(\pm\)7.0 \(\checkmark\) & 32.5\(\pm\)5.9 \(\checkmark\) & 40.2\(\pm\)4.1 \(\checkmark\) & 39.6\(\pm\)5.6 \(\checkmark\) & 34.4\(\pm\)7.2 \(\checkmark\) \\ MC1 & 23.8\(\pm\)4.9 \(\checkmark\) & 16.6\(\pm\)4.8 \(\checkmark\) & 41.3\(\pm\)6.2 \(\checkmark\) & 41.4\(\pm\)6.9 \(\checkmark\) & 13.1\(\pm\)3.8 \(\checkmark\) & 9.6\(\pm\)1.1 \(\checkmark\) & 11.9\(\pm\)6.3 \(\checkmark\) \\ MC2 & **58.2\(\pm\)**4.4 \(\checkmark\) & **54.2\(\pm\)4.6** \(\checkmark\) & 55.8\(\pm\)5.2 \(\checkmark\) & 54.3\(\pm\)5.8 \(\checkmark\) & 50.4\(\pm\)6.2 \(\checkmark\) & 51.2\(\pm\)6.0 \(\checkmark\) & 46.6\(\pm\)5.7 \(\checkmark\) \\ MW1 & **31.0\(\pm\)**4.6 \(\checkmark\) & 26.3\(\pm\)6.0 \(\checkmark\) & 30.0\(\pm\)6.5 \(\checkmark\) & 26.2\(\pm\)7.1 \(\checkmark\) & 28.4\(\pm\)5.6 \(\checkmark\) & 23.7\(\pm\)3.6 \(\checkmark\) & 29.4\(\pm\)8.0 \(\checkmark\) \\ PC1 & **41.5\(\pm\)**4.4 \(\checkmark\) & **34.2\(\pm\)3.4** \(\checkmark\) & 40.7\(\pm\)4.0 \(\checkmark\) & 40.4\(\pm\)5.4 \(\checkmark\) & 35.0\(\pm\)4.5 \(\checkmark\) & 30.1\(\pm\)2.2 \(\checkmark\) & 30.7\(\pm\)6.7 \(\checkmark\) \\ PC2 & 14.8\(\pm\)5.6 \(\checkmark\) & **15.7\(\pm\)**7.8 \(\checkmark\) & **1.4\(\pm\)**3.0 \(\checkmark\) & 0.8\(\pm\)**2.4 \(\checkmark\) & 13.3\(\pm\)6.5 \(\checkmark\) & 9.5\(\pm\)1.4 \(\checkmark\) & 0.6\(\pm\)1.9 \(\checkmark\) \\ PC3 & **37.7\(\pm\)**2.9 \(\checkmark\) & 34.1\(\pm\)**2.8 \(\checkmark\)**28.9\(\checkmark\)**3.4 \(\checkmark\) & 28.0\(\pm\)**3.0 \(\checkmark\) & 33.7\(\pm\)**3.1 \(\checkmark\) & 36.7\(\pm\)2.2 \(\checkmark\) & 27.0\(\pm\)4.7 \(\checkmark\) \\ PC4 & **62.1\(\pm\)**1.9 \(\checkmark\) & 53.6\(\pm\)**2.2 \(\checkmark\) & 58.6\(\pm\)**2.6 \(\checkmark\) & 58.2\(\pm\)**2.4 \(\checkmark\) & 56.6\(\pm\)**2.0 \(\checkmark\) & 54.5\(\pm\)1.5 \(\checkmark\) & 53.0\(\pm\)2.7 \(\checkmark\) \\ JM1 & 37.4\(\pm\)0.9 \(\checkmark\) & **34.7\(\pm\)**1.2 \(\checkmark\)** & **33.9\(\pm\)1.0** \(\checkmark\)** & 33.8\(\pm\)**0.7 \(\checkmark\) & 33.9\(\pm\)**1.2 \(\checkmark\) & 41.1\(\pm\)**0.5 \(\checkmark\) & 27.6\(\pm\)**1.8 \(\checkmark\)** \\ \hline
**Average** & 38.1 \(\checkmark\) & 34.5 \(\checkmark\) & 35 \(\checkmark\) & 34.2 \(\checkmark\) & 34.2 \(\checkmark\) & 33.6 \(\checkmark\) & 28.8 \(\checkmark\) \\ \hline
**Improvement of Average** & 10.6\(\checkmark\) & 9\(\checkmark\) & 11.4\(\checkmark\) & 11.6\(\checkmark\) & 13.7\(\checkmark\) & 32.3\(\checkmark\) \\ \hline
**Win/Tie/Lose** & 8/3/0 & 8/2/1 & 9/1/1 & 8/3/0 & 6/4/1 & 10/1/0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* **Note: (1) All numbers are in percentage (%) except the last two rows. (2) \(\checkmark\) denotes the corresponding method has no significant difference with the best method. (3) \(\checkmark\), and indicate that our CIB method significantly outperforms the corresponding baseline with large, moderate, and small effect size, respectively.**  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The comparison results of \(F_{1}\) for all methods in the form of mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. The best value is in boldface. Figure 2: Boxplot of \(F_{1}\), AGF, AUC, and MCC across all NASA datasets for our CIB and the baselines. The horizontal line in the box denotes median and the asterisk indicates mean value.