Software Defect Prediction using Autoencoder Transformer Model

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10840
• Title: Software Defect Prediction using Adaptive Differential Evolution-based Quantum Variational Autoencoder-Transformer (ADE-QVAET) Model
• Authors: Seshu Babu Barma, Mohanakrishnan Hariharan, Satish Arvapalli (Apple Inc.)
• Classification: cs.SE cs.AI
• Publication Date/Venue: 2024 Preprint
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10840

Abstract

This paper proposes an AI-ML-based quality engineering methodology to enhance software quality assessment through defect prediction. To address the difficulties of existing ML models in handling noisy data, data imbalance, pattern recognition, feature extraction, and generalization, we develop an Adaptive Differential Evolution (ADE)-based Quantum Variational Autoencoder-Transformer (QVAET) model (ADE-QVAET). This model combines ADE optimization with QVAET architecture to capture high-dimensional latent features while maintaining sequence dependencies, thereby improving defect prediction accuracy. At a 90% training ratio, ADE-QVAET achieves 98.08% accuracy, 92.45% precision, 94.67% recall, and 98.12% F1-score.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

1. High Software Testing Costs: Software testing in enterprise environments faces challenges from complex data and business requirements, with quality engineers spending 30-40% of their time on manual test execution
2. Insufficient Defect Prevention: Traditional testing methods rely on discovering errors after development completion, overlooking potential failures that could be prevented earlier
3. Inadequate Model Accuracy: Existing AI-ML technologies achieve defect prediction accuracy below 80%
4. Knowledge Isolation: Historical testing knowledge is limited to individual expertise rather than organizational assets

Research Significance

In complex enterprise systems such as cloud computing, microservices, IoT, and AI implementations, complex business logic and technical dependencies create exponential complexity, where traditional methods face limitations including hallucinations, insufficient context generation, and loss of critical business relationships during retrieval processes.

Limitations of Existing Methods

• Data Quality Issues: Uncleaned data contains redundant information, affecting prediction model accuracy
• Overfitting Tendency: Deep learning models are prone to overfitting on limited or noisy data
• Black-box Nature: Lack of interpretability makes it difficult for quality engineers to trust the models
• Computational Resource Requirements: Training and inference demand substantial computational resources
• Integration Difficulties: Insufficient integration with existing software development platforms

Core Contributions

1. Proposed ADE-QVAET Model: First to unify adaptive differential evolution, quantum variational autoencoder, and Transformer architecture into a single framework
2. Developed ANRA Preprocessing Framework: Adaptive Noise Reduction and data Augmentation framework to improve data quality and class balance
3. Implemented Dynamic Hyperparameter Optimization: ADE algorithm dynamically adjusts scaling factors and crossover rates based on candidate solution evolution performance
4. Achieved Significant Performance Improvements: 7.73% improvement in accuracy and 18.63% improvement in precision compared to traditional DE models

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Software defect prediction dataset containing static code attributes, maintainability index, cyclomatic complexity, lines of code, code churn features, etc. Output: Binary classification results (defective module/non-defective module) Objective: Maximize accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for defect prediction

Model Architecture

1. Data Preprocessing - ANRA Framework

Input dataset: D = {x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ}
Preprocessed data: D' = ANRA(D)

The ANRA framework balances defective and non-defective instances through noise reduction, redundant information removal, and synthetic data generation.

2. Quantum Variational Autoencoder (QVAE)

Latent feature extraction: Z = QVAE(D')

QVAE extracts high-dimensional latent features from input data, identifying complex multidimensional patterns.

3. Transformer Architecture

Sequence processing: T = Transformer(Z)

Transformer processes latent features to identify sequence dependencies and contextual relationships among software metrics.

4. Prediction Layer

Final prediction: P = PredictionLayer(T)

Technical Innovations

1. Quantum-Enhanced Feature Extraction

Compared to traditional VAE, QVAE leverages quantum computing principles to extract richer high-dimensional latent features, capturing complex patterns difficult for classical methods to identify.

2. Adaptive Differential Evolution Optimization

Mutation operation: v_{i,g+1} = x_{r1,g} + F × (x_{r2,g} - x_{r3,g})
Crossover operation: u_{j,i,g+1} = {v_{j,i,g+1} if rand(0,1) ≤ CR, x_{j,i,g} otherwise}
Selection operation: x_{i,g+1} = u_{i,g+1} if f(u_{i,g+1}) ≤ f(x_{i,g})

ADE dynamically adjusts F (scaling factor) and CR (crossover rate) based on population evolution, balancing exploration and exploitation.

3. End-to-End Optimization

Objective function: θ* = argmin f(θ), where θ includes critical hyperparameters such as learning rate, regularization coefficient, and number of layers.

Experimental Setup

Dataset

Data Source: Kaggle Software Defect Prediction Dataset Features: Lines of Code (LOC), cyclomatic complexity, Depth of Inheritance Tree (DIT), Coupling Between Objects (CBO), and other structural elements Labels: Binary classification (defect=1, non-defect=0) Challenge: Class imbalance problem with low frequency of defective modules

Evaluation Metrics

• Accuracy: Proportion of correct predictions
• Precision: Proportion of true defects among predicted defects
• Recall: Proportion of actual defects correctly identified
• F1-Score: Harmonic mean of precision and recall

Baseline Methods

• SVM (Support Vector Machine)
• DT (Decision Tree)
• RF (Random Forest)
• LR (Logistic Regression)
• QVA (Quantum Variational Autoencoder)
• DE (Differential Evolution)

Implementation Details

• Training Ratio: 90%
• Test Epochs: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500
• Optimization Objectives: Maximize accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score

Experimental Results

Main Results

Performance at Different Epochs

At 90% training ratio, ADE-QVAET achieves optimal performance at 500 epochs:

• Accuracy: 98.67%
• Precision: 98.67%
• Recall: 93.34%
• F1-Score: 98.56%

Comparison with Baseline Methods

Improvements of ADE-QVAET over traditional DE model at 90% training ratio:

• Accuracy Improvement: 7.73% (reaching 98.08%)
• Precision Improvement: 18.63% (reaching 92.45%)
• Recall Improvement: 4.34% (reaching 94.67%)
• F1-Score Improvement: 15.63% (reaching 98.12%)

Ablation Study

The paper validates the contribution of each component by comparing QVA and the complete ADE-QVAET model:

1. QVAE Component: Provides high-dimensional feature extraction capability
2. Transformer Component: Enhances sequence dependency modeling
3. ADE Optimization: Significantly improves convergence and prediction performance

Experimental Findings

1. Improved Convergence: ADE dynamic adjustment strategy significantly accelerates model convergence
2. Noise Robustness: ANRA preprocessing effectively improves model robustness to noisy data
3. Generalization Ability: Model demonstrates good generalization performance across different software projects

Related Work

Main Research Directions

1. Traditional Machine Learning Methods: Khalid et al. used K-means clustering to improve defect prediction, but with high computational overhead
2. Evolutionary Algorithm Optimization: Tang et al. proposed AVSSA algorithm for handling imbalanced data, but with high integration complexity
3. Deep Learning Methods: Khleel et al. combined CNN and GRU, requiring substantial computation and synthetic data generation
4. Feature Selection Techniques: Mehmood et al. developed ML methods based on feature selection, but with risk of information loss

Advantages of This Work

Compared to existing work, ADE-QVAET addresses through a unified framework:

• Computational complexity issues
• Noisy and imbalanced data handling
• Generalization capability for evolving software projects

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Technical Breakthrough: ADE-QVAET successfully integrates advantages of quantum computing, deep learning, and evolutionary algorithms
2. Superior Performance: Significantly outperforms existing methods on multiple metrics
3. Practical Value: Provides a scalable solution for AI-driven quality engineering

Limitations

1. Computational Complexity: Quantum variational autoencoder and Transformer architecture still require substantial computational resources
2. Data Dependency: Model performance highly depends on high-quality preprocessed data
3. Interpretability: As a deep learning model, it still exhibits black-box characteristics
4. Generalization Validation: Requires validation on more diverse types of software projects

Future Directions

1. Reinforcement Learning Integration: Combining deep learning and reinforcement learning for software problem prevention
2. Real-time Integration: Real-time integration with version control systems and CI/CD pipelines
3. Interpretability Improvement: Developing more interpretable AI-driven testing tools
4. Edge Computing Optimization: Model compression and optimization for resource-constrained environments

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Methodological Innovation: First to unify quantum computing, variational autoencoder, Transformer, and adaptive evolutionary algorithms
2. Comprehensive Experimental Design: Thorough comparative experiments across multiple epochs and baselines
3. Significant Performance Improvements: Noticeable improvements across all key metrics
4. Practical Application Value: Industry research from Apple with potential for real deployment

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: Lack of theoretical explanation for quantum enhancement effects
2. Single Dataset: Validation on only one Kaggle dataset; generalization capability needs further verification
3. Missing Computational Cost Analysis: No comparison of training time and computational resource consumption
4. Reproducibility Issues: Implementation details of quantum computing components lack sufficient description

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new insights for the intersection of software engineering and AI
2. Industrial Value: Directly applicable to enterprise software quality management
3. Technology Advancement: Promotes application of quantum machine learning in software engineering

Applicable Scenarios

1. Large-scale Enterprise Software Development: Suitable for quality management of complex enterprise systems
2. CI/CD Integration: Can be integrated into continuous integration/continuous deployment pipelines
3. Real-time Quality Monitoring: Supports real-time defect prediction during software development
4. Multi-project Management: Suitable for managing quality across multiple parallel software projects

References

This paper cites 21 related references, primarily including:

• Machine learning methods for software defect prediction
• Applications of evolutionary algorithms in software engineering
• Quantum machine learning technologies
• Deep learning applications in code analysis

Overall Assessment: This is a technically innovative paper that successfully integrates multiple cutting-edge technologies for software defect prediction. While there is room for improvement in theoretical analysis and validation completeness, its practical value and performance improvements are significant, contributing importantly to advancing AI applications in software quality engineering.