Data
kc2

kc2

active ARFF Publicly available Visibility: public Uploaded 06-10-2014 by Joaquin Vanschoren
0 likes downloaded by 0 people , 0 total downloads 0 issues 0 downvotes
  • study_14 study_1 study_4729 study_4828 study_5440 study_8674 study_10441 study_12766 study_531 study_1166 study_3006 study_4139 study_4828 study_5114 study_8854 study_12484 study_205 study_1837 study_3305 study_5259 study_5959 study_10608 study_11548 study_12737 study_13676 study_15796 study_1354 study_1634 study_2120 study_2217 study_2601 study_4090 study_4585 study_7533 study_10248 study_10744 study_11364 study_13539 study_14506 study_4583 study_6082 study_6381 study_7299 study_7764 study_10250 study_13377 study_8014 study_8577 study_13138 study_16365 study_3305 study_10238 study_11816 study_12008 study_13253 study_14455 study_15072 study_3541 study_9536 study_3100 study_6186 study_3012 study_3541 study_3683 study_5694 study_5990 study_6537 study_7628 study_12485 study_16032 study_3919 study_4342 study_4788 study_5406 study_5409 study_5428 study_5429 study_5432 study_5435 study_5734 study_6676 study_6697 study_6710 study_6723 study_6799 study_6927 study_7430 study_9640 study_10857 study_10863 study_11770 study_11782 study_11790 study_11800 study_11807 study_11815 study_11844 study_11851 study_11948 study_11983 study_12022 study_12023 study_12027 study_12052 study_12081 study_12096 study_12117 study_12133 study_12139 study_12147 study_12271 study_12357 study_12423 study_13006 study_14643 study_15462 study_6 study_7 study_207 study_208 study_464 study_490 study_530 study_648 study_649 study_754 study_755 study_850 study_937 study_938 study_1075 study_1165 study_1167 study_1261 study_1262 study_1356 study_1357 study_1456 study_1457 study_1597 study_1599 study_1635 study_1683 study_1685 study_1724 study_1725 study_1839 study_1840 study_1933 study_1934 study_2024 study_2025 study_2121 study_2122 study_2219 study_2220 study_2312 study_2326 study_2410 study_2412 study_2495 study_2500 study_2535 study_2600 study_2607 study_2736 study_2738 study_2833 study_2835 study_3009 study_3011 study_3051 study_3102 study_3103 study_3199 study_3200 study_3291 study_3292 study_3306 study_3307 study_3399 study_3414 study_3415 study_3539 study_3540 study_3543 study_3544 study_3636 study_3685 study_3686 study_3778 study_3819 study_3821 study_3823 study_3998 study_3999 study_4091 study_4138 study_4140 study_4195 study_4198 study_4200 study_4201 study_4202 study_4203 study_4584 study_4587 study_4588 study_4693 study_4735 study_4736 study_4829 study_4858 study_4873 study_4971 study_5019 study_5020 study_5111 study_5112 study_5115 study_5164 study_5166 study_5261 study_5262 study_5354 study_5356 study_5386 study_5389 study_5438 study_5439 study_5442 study_5443 study_5536 study_5537 study_5629 study_5631 study_5678 study_5695 study_5773 study_5774 study_5866 study_5913 study_5961 study_5962 study_5991 study_6017 study_6019 study_6088 study_6126 study_6130 study_6187 study_6190 study_6382 study_6385 study_6386 study_6416 study_6417 study_6533 study_6538 study_6625 study_6626 study_6666 study_6667 study_6668 study_6670 study_6672 study_6677 study_6724 study_6728 study_6874 study_6938 study_7024 study_7027 study_7209 study_7211 study_7301 study_7302 study_7395 study_7404 study_7409 study_7534 study_7535 study_7627 study_7630 study_7631 study_7766 study_7769 study_7770 study_7771 study_7950 study_7997 study_8015 study_8016 study_8103 study_8104 study_8115 study_8117 study_8158 study_8257 study_8258 study_8392 study_8442 study_8456 study_8578 study_8581 study_8582 study_8676 study_8677 study_8775 study_8823 study_8824 study_8853 study_8855 study_9010 study_9057 study_9071 study_9151 study_9159 study_9246 study_9249 study_9343 study_9344 study_9435 study_9436 study_9439 study_9440 study_9533 study_9534 study_9537 study_9538 study_9592 study_9593 study_9807 study_9808 study_9904 study_9905 study_10002 study_10003 study_10089 study_10091 study_10093 study_10095 study_10098 study_10099 study_10149 study_10187 study_10231 study_10233 study_10235 study_10237 study_10239 study_10241 study_10243 study_10245 study_10247 study_10249 study_10251 study_10253 study_10256 study_10257 study_10343 study_10345 study_10347 study_10433 study_10447 study_10522 study_10523 study_10609 study_10635 study_10656 study_10657 study_10745 study_10747 study_10752 study_10766 study_10843 study_10944 study_10945 study_11037 study_11039 study_11131 study_11133 study_11148 study_11149 study_11223 study_11255 study_11269 study_11271 study_11315 study_11366 study_11369 study_11456 study_11461 study_11475 study_11550 study_11551 study_11629 study_11630 study_11723 study_11724 study_11734 study_11738 study_11779 study_11783 study_11786 study_11787 study_11825 study_11829 study_11839 study_11843 study_11885 study_11911 study_11934 study_11952 study_11981 study_12010 study_12486 study_12490 study_12606 study_12620 study_12652 study_12745 study_12750 study_12767 study_12768 study_12916 study_12922 study_12925 study_13048 study_13051 study_13053 study_13139 study_13145 study_13226 study_13231 study_13255 study_13263 study_13360 study_13362 study_13364 study_13381 study_13452 study_13479 study_13543 study_13585 study_13586 study_13674 study_13675 study_13677 study_13678 study_13848 study_13874 study_13879 study_13985 study_14009 study_14020 study_14113 study_14114 study_14201 study_14215 study_14220 study_14222 study_14257 study_14259 study_14459 study_14497 study_14499 study_14514 study_14589 study_14591 study_14593 study_14594 study_14595 study_14667 study_14668 study_14943 study_14954 study_14956 study_15078 study_15080 study_15162 study_15203 study_15206 study_15210 study_15212 study_15295 study_15313 study_15383 study_15430 study_15435 study_15517 study_15559 study_15603 study_15649 study_15692 study_15693 study_15696 study_15698 study_15700 study_15712 study_15714 study_15797 study_15798 study_15891 study_15893 study_15985 study_16033 study_16034 study_16129 study_16173 study_16224 study_16271 study_16272 study_16364 study_16366 study_16368 study_16400 study_16419 study_16420 study_16421 study_16475 study_16476 study_16609 study_16611 study_16619 study_16621 study_16631 study_16632 study_16635 study_16636 study_16657 study_16658 study_16670 study_16671 study_16701 study_16702 study_16863 study_16909
Issue #Downvotes for this reason By


Loading wiki
Help us complete this description Edit
Author: Source: Unknown - Date unknown Please cite: %-*- text -*- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% This is a PROMISE Software Engineering Repository data set made publicly available in order to encourage repeatable, verifiable, refutable, and/or improvable predictive models of software engineering. If you publish material based on PROMISE data sets then, please follow the acknowledgment guidelines posted on the PROMISE repository web page http://promise.site.uottawa.ca/SERepository . %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1. Title/Topic: KC2/software defect prediction 2. Sources: -- Creators: NASA, then the NASA Metrics Data Program, -- http://mdp.ivv.nasa.gov. Contacts: Mike Chapman, Galaxy Global Corporation (Robert.Chapman@ivv.nasa.gov) +1-304-367-8341; Pat Callis, NASA, NASA project manager for MDP (Patrick.E.Callis@ivv.nasa.gov) +1-304-367-8309 -- Donor: Tim Menzies (tim@barmag.net) -- Date: December 2 2004 3. Past usage: 1. How Good is Your Blind Spot Sampling Policy?; 2003; Tim Menzies and Justin S. Di Stefano; 2004 IEEE Conference on High Assurance Software Engineering (http://menzies.us/pdf/03blind.pdf). -- Results: -- Very simple learners (ROCKY) perform as well in this domain as more sophisticated methods (e.g. J48, model trees, model trees) for predicting detects -- Many learners have very low false alarm rates. -- Probability of detection (PD) rises with effort and rarely rises above it. -- High PDs are associated with high PFs (probability of failure) -- PD, PF, effort can change significantly while accuracy remains essentially stable -- With two notable exceptions, detectors learned from one data set (e.g. KC2) have nearly they same properties when applied to another (e.g. PC2, KC2). Exceptions: -- LinesOfCode measures generate wider inter-data-set variances; -- Precision's inter-data-set variances vary wildly 2. "Assessing Predictors of Software Defects", T. Menzies and J. DiStefano and A. Orrego and R. Chapman, 2004, Proceedings, workshop on Predictive Software Models, Chicago, Available from http://menzies.us/pdf/04psm.pdf. -- Results: -- From KC2, Naive Bayes generated PDs of 50% with PF of 10% -- Naive Bayes out-performs J48 for defect detection -- When learning on more and more data, little improvement is seen after processing 300 examples. -- PDs are much higher from data collected below the sub-sub- system level. -- Accuracy is a surprisingly uninformative measure of success for a defect detector. Two detectors with the same accuracy can have widely varying PDs and PFs. 4. Relevant information: -- Data from C++ functions. Science data processing; another part of the same project as KC1; different personnel than KC1. Shared some third-party software libraries with KC1, but no other software overlap. -- Data comes from McCabe and Halstead features extractors of source code. These features were defined in the 70s in an attempt to objectively characterize code features that are associated with software quality. The nature of association is under dispute. Notes on McCabe and Halstead follow. -- The McCabe and Halstead measures are "module"-based where a "module" is the smallest unit of functionality. In C or Smalltalk, "modules" would be called "function" or "method" respectively. -- Defect detectors can be assessed according to the following measures: module actually has defects +-------------+------------+ | no | yes | +-----+-------------+------------+ classifier predicts no defects | no | a | b | +-----+-------------+------------+ classifier predicts some defects | yes | c | d | +-----+-------------+------------+ accuracy = acc = (a+d)/(a+b+c+d probability of detection = pd = recall = d/(b+d) probability of false alarm = pf = c/(a+c) precision = prec = d/(c+d) effort = amount of code selected by detector = (c.LOC + d.LOC)/(Total LOC) Ideally, detectors have high PDs, low PFs, and low effort. This ideal state rarely happens: -- PD and effort are linked. The more modules that trigger the detector, the higher the PD. However, effort also gets increases -- High PD or low PF comes at the cost of high PF or low PD (respectively). This linkage can be seen in a standard receiver operator curve (ROC). Suppose, for example, LOC> x is used as the detector (i.e. we assume large modules have more errors). LOC > x represents a family of detectors. At x=0, EVERY module is predicted to have errors. This detector has a high PD but also a high false alarm rate. At x=0, NO module is predicted to have errors. This detector has a low false alarm rate but won't detect anything at all. At 0 but does not reach it. -- The line pf=pd on the above graph represents the "no information" line. If pf=pd then the detector is pretty useless. The better the detector, the more it rises above PF=PD towards the "sweet spot". NOTES ON MCCABE/HALSTEAD ======================== McCabe argued that code with complicated pathways are more error-prone. His metrics therefore reflect the pathways within a code module. @Article{mccabe76, title = "A Complexity Measure", author = "T.J. McCabe", pages = "308--320", journal = "IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering", year = "1976", volume = "2", month = "December", number = "4"} Halstead argued that code that is hard to read is more likely to be fault prone. Halstead estimates reading complexity by counting the number of concepts in a module; e.g. number of unique operators. @Book{halstead77, Author = "M.H. Halstead", Title = "Elements of Software Science", Publisher = "Elsevier ", Year = 1977} We study these static code measures since they are useful, easy to use, and widely used: -- USEFUL: E.g. this data set can generate highly accurate predictors for defects -- EASY TO USE: Static code measures (e.g. lines of code, the McCabe/Halstead measures) can be automatically and cheaply collected. -- WIDELY USED: Many researchers use static measures to guide software quality predictions (see the reference list in the above "blind spot" paper. Verification and validation (V\&V) textbooks advise using static code complexity measures to decide which modules are worthy of manual inspections. Further, we know of several large government software contractors that won't review software modules _unless_ tools like McCabe predict that they are fault prone. Hence, defect detectors have a major economic impact when they may force programmers to rewrite code. Nevertheless, the merits of these metrics has been widely criticized. Static code measures are hardly a complete characterization of the internals of a function. Fenton offers an insightful example where the same functionality is achieved using different programming language constructs resulting in different static measurements for that module. Fenton uses this example to argue the uselessness of static code measures. @book{fenton97, author = "N.E. Fenton and S.L. Pfleeger", title = {Software metrics: a Rigorous \& Practical Approach}, publisher = {International Thompson Press}, year = {1997}} An alternative interpretation of Fenton's example is that static measures can never be a definite and certain indicator of the presence of a fault. Rather, defect detectors based on static measures are best viewed as probabilistic statements that the frequency of faults tends to increase in code modules that trigger the detector. By definition, such probabilistic statements will are not categorical claims with some a non-zero false alarm rate. The research challenge for data miners is to ensure that these false alarms do not cripple their learned theories. The McCabe metrics are a collection of four software metrics: essential complexity, cyclomatic complexity, design complexity and LOC, Lines of Code. -- Cyclomatic Complexity, or "v(G)", measures the number of "linearly independent paths". A set of paths is said to be linearly independent if no path in the set is a linear combination of any other paths in the set through a program's "flowgraph". A flowgraph is a directed graph where each node corresponds to a program statement, and each arc indicates the flow of control from one statement to another. "v(G)" is calculated by "v(G) = e - n + 2" where "G" is a program's flowgraph, "e" is the number of arcs in the flowgraph, and "n" is the number of nodes in the flowgraph. The standard McCabes rules ("v(G)">10), are used to identify fault-prone module. -- Essential Complexity, or "ev(G)$" is the extent to which a flowgraph can be "reduced" by decomposing all the subflowgraphs of $G$ that are "D-structured primes". Such "D-structured primes" are also sometimes referred to as "proper one-entry one-exit subflowgraphs" (for a more thorough discussion of D-primes, see the Fenton text referenced above). "ev(G)" is calculated using "ev(G)= v(G) - m" where $m$ is the number of subflowgraphs of "G" that are D-structured primes. -- Design Complexity, or "iv(G)", is the cyclomatic complexity of a module's reduced flowgraph. The flowgraph, "G", of a module is reduced to eliminate any complexity which does not influence the interrelationship between design modules. According to McCabe, this complexity measurement reflects the modules calling patterns to its immediate subordinate modules. -- Lines of code is measured according to McCabe's line counting conventions. The Halstead falls into three groups: the base measures, the derived measures, and lines of code measures. -- Base measures: -- mu1 = number of unique operators -- mu2 = number of unique operands -- N1 = total occurrences of operators -- N2 = total occurrences of operands -- length = N = N1 + N2 -- vocabulary = mu = mu1 + mu2 -- Constants set for each function: -- mu1' = 2 = potential operator count (just the function name and the "return" operator) -- mu2' = potential operand count. (the number of arguments to the module) For example, the expression "return max(w+x,x+y)" has "N1=4" operators "return, max, +,+)", "N2=4" operands (w,x,x,y), "mu1=3" unique operators (return, max,+), and "mu2=3" unique operands (w,x,y). -- Derived measures: -- P = volume = V = N * log2(mu) (the number of mental comparisons needed to write a program of length N) -- V* = volume on minimal implementation = (2 + mu2')*log2(2 + mu2') -- L = program length = V*/N -- D = difficulty = 1/L -- L' = 1/D -- I = intelligence = L'*V' -- E = effort to write program = V/L -- T = time to write program = E/18 seconds 5. Number of instances: 522 6. Number of attributes: 22 (5 different lines of code measure, 3 McCabe metrics, 4 base Halstead measures, 8 derived Halstead measures, a branch-count, and 1 goal field) 7. Attribute Information: 1. loc : numeric % McCabe's line count of code 2. v(g) : numeric % McCabe "cyclomatic complexity" 3. ev(g) : numeric % McCabe "essential complexity" 4. iv(g) : numeric % McCabe "design complexity" 5. n : numeric % Halstead total operators + operands 6. v : numeric % Halstead "volume" 7. l : numeric % Halstead "program length" 8. d : numeric % Halstead "difficulty" 9. i : numeric % Halstead "intelligence" 10. e : numeric % Halstead "effort" 11. b : numeric % Halstead 12. t : numeric % Halstead's time estimator 13. lOCode : numeric % Halstead's line count 14. lOComment : numeric % Halstead's count of lines of comments 15. lOBlank : numeric % Halstead's count of blank lines 16. lOCodeAndComment: numeric 17. uniq_Op : numeric % unique operators 18. uniq_Opnd : numeric % unique operands 19. total_Op : numeric % total operators 20. total_Opnd : numeric % total operands 21: branchCount : numeric % of the flow graph 22. problems : {no,yes}% module has/has not one or more % reported defects 8. Missing attributes: none 9. Class Distribution: the class value (problems) is discrete yes: 105 = 20.5% no: 415 = 79.5% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

22 features

problems (target)nominal2 unique values
0 missing
locnumeric123 unique values
0 missing
v(g)numeric37 unique values
0 missing
ev(g)numeric21 unique values
0 missing
iv(g)numeric26 unique values
0 missing
nnumeric196 unique values
0 missing
vnumeric297 unique values
0 missing
lnumeric44 unique values
0 missing
dnumeric254 unique values
0 missing
inumeric319 unique values
0 missing
enumeric329 unique values
0 missing
bnumeric86 unique values
0 missing
tnumeric330 unique values
0 missing
lOCodenumeric112 unique values
0 missing
lOCommentnumeric28 unique values
0 missing
lOBlanknumeric35 unique values
0 missing
lOCodeAndCommentnumeric8 unique values
0 missing
uniq_Opnumeric30 unique values
0 missing
uniq_Opndnumeric66 unique values
0 missing
total_Opnumeric152 unique values
0 missing
total_Opndnumeric131 unique values
0 missing
branchCountnumeric37 unique values
0 missing

107 properties

522
Number of instances (rows) of the dataset.
22
Number of attributes (columns) of the dataset.
2
Number of distinct values of the target attribute (if it is nominal).
0
Number of missing values in the dataset.
0
Number of instances with at least one value missing.
21
Number of numeric attributes.
1
Number of nominal attributes.
3.05
First quartile of means among attributes of the numeric type.
0.78
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 1
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.19
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 3
0.33
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .0001
Average mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
0.41
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes
First quartile of mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
0.16
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 1
0.34
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.38
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 3
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .001
An estimate of the amount of irrelevant information in the attributes regarding the class. Equals (MeanAttributeEntropy - MeanMutualInformation) divided by MeanMutualInformation.
1
Number of binary attributes.
5.48
First quartile of skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
0.41
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 1
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0
Standard deviation of the number of distinct values among attributes of the nominal type.
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .001
2
Average number of distinct values among the attributes of the nominal type.
6.51
First quartile of standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
0.78
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 2
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.66
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk
0.33
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .001
8.95
Mean skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
Second quartile (Median) of entropy among attributes.
0.16
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 2
0.34
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.2
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk
79.5
Percentage of instances belonging to the most frequent class.
5875.73
Mean standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
139.55
Second quartile (Median) of kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
0.41
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 2
0.73
Entropy of the target attribute values.
0.39
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.lazy.IBk
415
Number of instances belonging to the most frequent class.
Minimal entropy among attributes.
9.74
Second quartile (Median) of means among attributes of the numeric type.
0.78
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 3
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump
Maximum entropy among attributes.
1.99
Minimum kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
Second quartile (Median) of mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
0.16
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 3
0.2
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump
321.26
Maximum kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
0.19
Minimum of means among attributes of the numeric type.
10.08
Second quartile (Median) of skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
0.41
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.REPTree -L 3
0.4
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump
18542.99
Maximum of means among attributes of the numeric type.
Minimal mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
4.55
Percentage of binary attributes.
21.94
Second quartile (Median) of standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
0.64
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 1
0.04
Number of attributes divided by the number of instances.
Maximum mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
2
The minimal number of distinct values among attributes of the nominal type.
0
Percentage of instances having missing values.
Third quartile of entropy among attributes.
0.19
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 1
Number of attributes needed to optimally describe the class (under the assumption of independence among attributes). Equals ClassEntropy divided by MeanMutualInformation.
2
The maximum number of distinct values among attributes of the nominal type.
1.05
Minimum skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
0
Percentage of missing values.
199.21
Third quartile of kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
0.99
Average class difference between consecutive instances.
0.38
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 1
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .00001
16.79
Maximum skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
0.28
Minimum standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
95.45
Percentage of numeric attributes.
47.32
Third quartile of means among attributes of the numeric type.
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.64
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 2
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .00001
113271.22
Maximum standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
20.5
Percentage of instances belonging to the least frequent class.
4.55
Percentage of nominal attributes.
Third quartile of mutual information between the nominal attributes and the target attribute.
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.19
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 2
0.33
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .00001
Average entropy of the attributes.
107
Number of instances belonging to the least frequent class.
First quartile of entropy among attributes.
12.28
Third quartile of skewness among attributes of the numeric type.
0.34
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.DecisionStump -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.38
Kappa coefficient achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 2
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .0001
130.11
Mean kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
0.81
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes
43.98
First quartile of kurtosis among attributes of the numeric type.
116.69
Third quartile of standard deviation of attributes of the numeric type.
0.73
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes -E "weka.attributeSelection.CfsSubsetEval -P 1 -E 1" -S "weka.attributeSelection.BestFirst -D 1 -N 5" -W
0.64
Area Under the ROC Curve achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.RandomTree -depth 3
0.18
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.trees.J48 -C .0001
977.89
Mean of means among attributes of the numeric type.
0.17
Error rate achieved by the landmarker weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes

11 tasks

422 runs - estimation_procedure: 10-fold Crossvalidation - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: Test on Training Data - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 10% Holdout set - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 5 times 2-fold Crossvalidation - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 33% Holdout set - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: Leave one out - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 10 times 10-fold Crossvalidation - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 20% Holdout (Ordered) - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 10 times 10-fold Learning Curve - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: 10-fold Learning Curve - target_feature: problems
0 runs - estimation_procedure: Interleaved Test then Train - target_feature: problems
Define a new task