50120130406033

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print),
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING &
ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 4, Issue 6, November - December (2013), © IAEME

TECHNOLOGY (IJCET)

ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)
Volume 4, Issue 6, November - December (2013), pp. 290-298
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijcet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 6.1302 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJCET
©IAEME

EFFORT ESTIMATION USING A SOFT COMPUTING TECHNIQUE
Sheenu Rizvi1, Prof. Dr. S. Q. Abbas2,

Prof. Dr. Rizwan Beg3

1

Deptt. of CS, Amity University, Luck now, India
2
Director, AIMT, Luck now, India
3
Controller of Examination, Integral University, Lucknow, India

ABSTRACT
Accurately estimating software effort is probably the biggest challenge facing software
developers. Estimates done at the proposal stage has high degree of inaccuracy, where requirements
for the scope are not defined to the lowest details, but as the project progresses and requirements are
elaborated, accuracy and confidence on estimate increases. It is important to choose the right
software effort estimation techniques for the prediction of software effort. In the present work
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model has been developed using Multi Layered Feed Forward
Neural Network using Back Propagation learning algorithm by iteratively processing a set of training
samples and comparing the network’s prediction with the actual effort. COCOMO dataset has been
used to test and train the network using nine different types of training algorithms. It was observed
that the proposed model improves the estimation accuracy of the model. The performance indices
Mean-Square-Error (MSE), Magnitude of Relative-Error (MRE), and Regression analysis (R) have
been used to compare the results obtained from this method. The preliminary results suggest that the
proposed model can be replicated for accurately forecasting the software development effort.
Keywords: Software Effort Estimation, Artificial Neural Network, Back Propagation, COCOMO.
I. INTRODUCTION
Software effort estimation is one of the most critical and complex, but an inevitable activity
in the software development processes. Although a great amount of research time, and money have
been devoted to improving accuracy of the various estimation models, due to the inherent uncertainty
in software development projects as like complex and dynamic interaction factors, intrinsic software
complexity, pressure on standardization and lack of software data, it is unrealistic to expect very
accurate effort estimation of software development processes [1].

290


There are many estimation models which have been proposed and can be categorized based
on their basic formulation schemes; estimation by expert [8], analogy based estimation schemes [2],
algorithmic methods including empirical methods, rule induction methods [7], artificial neural
network based approaches [4] [11], Bayesian network approaches [3], decision tree based methods
and fuzzy logic based estimation schemes [5].
Among the software cost estimation techniques, COCOMO (Constructive Cost Model) is the
mostly used algorithmic cost modeling technique because of its simplicity for estimating the effort in
person-months for a project at different stages. Many researchers have [4, 6] explored the possibility
of using neural networks for estimating the effort.
The aim of the present work is to propose an optimal neural network model for software
effort estimation. The network architecture is designed accordingly to accommodate the COCOMO
model and its parameters. The present work explores a new single layered artificial neural network
that was constructed for software effort estimation and is trained with nine different learning
algorithms.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Many software cost estimation models have been developed over the last decades. A recent
study by Jorgensen [9] provides a detailed review of different studies on the software development
effort. Many researchers have applied the neural networks approach to estimate software
development effort [6, 10]. Many different models of neural networks have been proposed [14].
They may be grouped in two major categories. First one is feed forward networks where no loops in
the network path occur. Another one is feedback networks that have recursive loops. Understanding
the adversity in applying neural networks, Nasser Tadayon [1] has proposed a dynamic neural
network that will initially use COCOMO II Model. COCOMO, however, has some limitations. It
cannot effectively deal with imprecise and uncertain information, and calibration of COCOMO is
one of the most important tasks that need to be done in order to get accurate estimations. So, there is
always scope for developing effort estimation models with better predictive accuracy.
III. ANN METHODOLOGY
An ANN can be defined as a system or mathematical model consisting of many nonlinear
artificial neurons running in parallel which can be generated as one or multiple layered. A Feed
Forward Neural Network (FFNN) consists of at least three layers, input, output and hidden layer. The
number of hidden layers and neurons in hidden layer are determined by trial and error method. The
strength of connection between the two layers is determined by the weights Wij . The schematic
diagram of a FFNN is shown in Fig. 1

X1

X2

Y

X3

Wij

Input Layer

Hidden

Output Layer

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a FFNN

291


Each neuron in a layer receives weighted inputs from a previous layer and transmits its output to
neurons in the next layer. The summation of weighted input signals is calculated by Eq. (1) and is
transferred by a nonlinear activation function given in Eq. (2). The responses of network are
compared with the observation results and the network error is calculated with equation (3)
N

Ynet = ∑ X i .wi + w0

(1)

i =1

Yout = f ( ynet ) =

1
1 + e −Ynet

1 k
J r = .∑ (Yobs − Yout ) 2
2 i =1

(2)
(3)

Yout is the response of neural network system, f (Ynet) is the nonlinear activation function, Ynet is the
summation of weighted inputs, Xi is the neuron input, wi is weight coefficient of each neuron input,
w0 is bias, Jr is the error between observed value and network result, Yobs is the observation output
value
IV. AVAILABLE DATA, MODEL INPUTS AND MODEL STRUCTURE
One of the most important steps in the development of any prediction model is the selection
of appropriate input variables that will allow an ANN to successfully produce the desired results.
Good understanding of the process under consideration is an important prerequisite for successful
application of data driven approaches. The main reason for this is that ANN belong to the class of
data-driven approaches.
Predicting Effort is a complicated problem that involves multiple interacting factors. In order
to build a reasonably accurate model for prediction, proper parameters must be selected. Some
practical considerations in parameter selections are firstly, the selected parameters must affect the
target problem, i.e., strong relationships must exist among the parameters and target (or output)
variables, and secondly, the selected parameters must be well-populated, and corresponding data
must be as clean as possible. Since the soft computing methods model problems based on available
data, the availability and quality of data are both essential
V. DATA DESCRIPTION
In the present work COCOMO81 dataset has been used for Effort Estimation ANN model
development. In algorithmic cost estimation, costs and efforts are predicted using mathematical
formula. The formula are derived based on some historical data. The best known algorithmic cost
model called COCOMO (Constructive Cost Model) was published by Barry Boehm in 1981. It was
developed from the analysis of sixty three (63) software projects.
The data used as input and output variables for optimum model development are given in the
Table:1 below. In all sixteen input variables have been used which include fifteen effort multipliers
and the SIZE measured in thousand delivered source instructions. The output of the model is the
Development Effort (DE), which is measured in man-months. The data were collected from the
analysis of sixty three (63) software projects, as published by Barry Boehm in 1981.

292


Table 1: Input and Output variables
RELY - Required software reliability
Input
Variables DATA - Data base size
CPLX - Product complexity
TIME - Execution time
STOR—main storage constraint
VIRT—virtual machine volatility
TURN—computer turnaround time
ACAP—analyst capability
AEXP—applications experience
PCAP—programmer capability
VEXP—virtual machine experience
LEXP—language experience
MODP—modern programming
TOOL—use of software tools
SCED—required development
schedule
SIZE
Development Effort (DE)
Output
Variable
VI. NETWORK BUILDING AND TRAINING
NN Model is created using Matlab Neural Network toolbox. Matlab tool facilitates ease of
simulation and modeling. As discussed earlier, size of input and output vector is decided. Trials are
first conducted by randomly selecting number of processing elements. NN models are created with
one hidden layer and varying number of processing elements or neurons. As per White’s theorem,
one layer with non-linear activation function is enough to map non-linear functional relationship in a
fairly accurate way.
In the present work optimal network geometry was investigated, using trial and error
approach, in an attempt to create more optimum model. Thus to minimise the number of networks
that required training and testing, ANN’s containing 2 to 20 nodes were considered in order to
narrow down the search. Once this range was determined, the trial and error approach was repeated,
with the number of hidden nodes increasing in increment of two from minimum nodes onwards. The
learning rate was also initially kept to minimum and slowly increased. Thus various permutation and
combinations of both these factors were used during the training process. The fixed period stops of
1000 cycles was used for training the network and the target error was set to stop during training
when the average error reaches below 0.999999.
Finally the optimum nodes were found for the best developed network and the networks on
either side of the best developed network were also tested. Further training of the network is carried
out. Training is the process by which the weights of an ANN are estimated, by using an iterative
procedure to minimise a predetermined error, or objective function, such as the MSE. Therefore,
ANN training is essentially a nonlinear least squares problem, which can be solved using standard
nonlinear least squares methods. As mentioned earlier, nine different types of training algoritms are
investigated for developing the MLP network. The algorithms include: LM=Levenberg-Marquardt;
GD=Gradient Descent; GDA= Gradient Descent with adaptive learning rate; GDX= Gradient
Descent with adaptive learning rate and momentum; GDM= Gradient descent with momentum;
SCG= Scaled Conjugate Gradient; RP= Resilient Backpropagation; BFG= BFGS quasi-Newton
backpropagation; BR= Bayesian Regularization.
293


MATLAB provides the built in transfer function which is used in the present work, i.e tangent
sigmoid transfer in the hidden layer and linear one in the outer layer. Here in this work BackPropagation algorithm has been used for training the Feed Forward Neural Network architecture.

Network Type
Training Functions
Used

Table 2: Model parameter values
Parameters used for Network Training
Feed Forward Neural Network with Back Propagation
LM=Levenberg-Marquardt;
GD=Gradient Descent;
GDA= Gradient Descent with adaptive learning rate;
GDX= Gradient Descent with adaptive learning rate and
momentum;
GDM= Gradient descent with momentum;
SCG= Scaled Conjugate Gradient;
RP= Resilient Baxkpropagation;
BFG= BFGS quasi-Newton backpropagation
BR = Bayesian Regularization
learnGDM and learnGD

Adaption Learning
Function
Performance Function Mean Square Error (MSE); Regression (R)
For Hidden layer – tansigmoid
Transfer Function
For output layer - linear
2 to 10; in some cases upto 20
No. Of neurons used
for hidden layer

Once the training is complete, the weights are frozen, network structure is finalized and data
to be used for functional requirements of the NN model is converted into useful format, training,
testing, and validation of the NN model can be started. Matlab NN toolbox has characteristic of
dividing the available data into 70 percent for training, 15 percent for testing and another 15 percent
for validation of the NN model. Training is the only time data is back propagated through the
network. During recall, the network is strictly feed forward. The various parameters used for training
the network are given in the Table: 2.
VII. PERFORMANCE MEASURING CRITERIA
Performance criteria which measure prediction accuracy generally measure the fit (or lack
there of) between the model outputs and the observed data by some error measure E y .
(1) Mean Squared Error (MSE) MSE evaluates the residual between measured and forecasted values.
MSE is a frequently-used measure of the difference between values predicted by a model or an
estimator and the values actually observed from the thing being modelled or estimated.
Theoretically, if this criterion equals zero then model represents the perfect fit, which is not
possible at all.
(2) Regression (R) It provides information on the strength of linear relationship between the
observed and the computed values. The value r close to 1.0 indicates good model performance and
can be calculated using the following formula,
(3) Magnitude of Relative Error (MRE) It is defined as
MRE ={ [Mod (Actual Effort – Predicted Effort)] / Actual Effort}*100
294


A high score means worse prediction accuracy. Here it is assumed that the error is
proportional to the size of the project.
VIII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The model performance in terms of training, testing and validating results corresponding to
each neurons added to the hidden layer were calculated and plotted as shown in figures 2 to 7.
Table: 3 shows the comparative chart of estimated and predicted effort values for randomly selected
10 project values using COCOMO and ANN methodologies. Further Table: 4 tabulate the Magnitude
of Relative Error (MRE) values for both the COCOMO and ANN models. The same results have
been plotted graphically in figure 7. This figure shows the effort prediction accuracy of the neural
network. The chart clearly shows that there is a decrement in the relative error, so that the proposed
model is more suitable for effort estimation. The preliminary results obtained suggest that the
proposed architecture can be replicated for accurately forecasting the software development effort.
The aim of this study is to improve the estimation accuracy of COCOMO model, so that the
estimated effort is more close to the actual effort.
Once the network has been trained to the level where the predicted results are fairly accurate,
testing is carried out to assure that predicted results are in close proximity to actual values. For the
best developed NN model i.e. 16-8-1, with eight neurons in the hidden layer using Levenberg
training algorithm, the MSE plot is shown in figure:2(b) for the best validation performance and
correspondingly the regression plot of training, testing and validation is shown in figure:2(a). MSE is
used to judge the accuracy of the prediction during training, testing and validation. It was also
noticed from figure 2 that the performance did not improve even when the network error was low. It
was noticed that roughly after 5 epochs the training error continued to decrease even when the
performance of testing and validation were somewhat stagnant. This can be referred to the effect as
“overfitting”. Since from the study conducted on network topology, the performance of NN model
which is most accurate is 16-8-1, hence it is our best choice of network topology. With this selection
of network topology, number of layers, processing elements, generalization characteristics are
preserved. It was also noticed that training time is also significantly reduced as there are lesser
iterations every time.
Figure 6 depicts comparison of actual values and values predicted by best selected NN model
for effort estimation using LM training algorithm and GDM training function for N=8. It is noticed
that except for rare occasions, simulated effort values for the designated parameters are in acceptable
proximity with actual values. This representation therefore agrees with the conclusion that, high
accuracy of prediction is attained by Neural Network model after successful completion of training
criteria i.e. with the value of MSE being within acceptable range as well as agreeable performance
measure. Hence from the results it is inferred that the performance of NN model is acceptable.
Further, from the perusal of the data and the analysis of the graphical plot of R values for
training, testing and validation data sets from Figure 3, 4 and 5, it is clear that the best NN model that
has been created uses Levenberg-Marquardt training algorithm, followed in descending order of
performance by BR, RP and finally SCG. Thus, L-M algorithm seems to be better suited for training
the NN model for better prediction accuracy.

295


Figure 2(a): Regression analysis graph
for N=4

Figure 2(b): Depicts the acceptable
training performance

R Value for different Training Algorithms

R Valus for Testing Data
1

1

R

R(T in g D ta
ra in a )

0.8
LM-GDM
LM-GD

0.5

LM-GDM
LM-GD

0.6

SCG-GDM

SCG-GDM

0.4

SCG-GD
BR-GDM

0.2

BR-GD

SCG-GD
BR-GDM
BR-GD

0

RP-GDM

1

2

3

4

5

RP-GDM

0
1

2

3

4

No. of Neurons

5

No. of neurons

Figure 3: Shows regression values
for training data

Figure 4: Shows regression values
for testing data

R Value for Validation Data

R

1

LM-GDM
LM-GD
SCG-GDM

0.5

SCG-GD
BR-GDM

0
1

2

3

4

No. of Neurons

5

BR-GD
RP-GDM

Figure 5: Shows regression values for
validating data

Sl. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Figure 6: Comparative Plot of Actual,
COCOMO and Predicted ANN Efforts

Table 3: Comparison of Effort Estimation
MRE using
COCOMO
ANN
8.651814
0.00108
73.9111
98.0285
1.37749
0.048272
2.00825
0.06958
16.9394
20.8772
40.51163
72.82633
22.125
23.66643
41.41395
0.05777

296


Table 4: MRE Values for different Models
Sl. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MRE using
COCOMO
8.651814
73.9111
1.37749
2.00825
16.9394
40.51163
22.125
41.41395
21.04728
14.17757

ANN
0.00108
98.0285
0.048272
0.06958
20.8772
72.82633
23.66643
0.05777
53.33515
95.84656

Figure 7: Plot of MRE values for COCOMO and ANN models

IX. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
A reliable and accurate estimate of software development effort has always been a challenge
for both the software industrial and academic communities. There are several software effort
forecasting models that can be used in forecasting future software development effort. Hence an
effort estimation model based on artificial neural networks has been constructed. The idea consists in
the use of a model that maps COCOMO model to a neural network with minimal number of layers
and nodes to increase the performance of the network. The neural network that has been used to
predict the software development effort is the multi layer feed forward neural network with back
propagation training algorithm. The COCOMO81 dataset has been used to train and to test the
network and it was observed that neural network model provided significantly better effort
estimations than the estimation done using COCOMO model. Accordingly, it is inferred that the
rationalization and interpretation of the knowledge stored in the architecture and synapse weights of
the neural nets is very important to gain practitioners acceptance. Another great advantage of this
work is that one can put together expert knowledge, project data and the traditional algorithmic
model into one general framework that can have a wide range of applicability in software cost
estimation. This work can be extended by integrating this approach with fuzzy logic to effectively
deal with imprecise and uncertain information associated with COCOMO. Therefore, a promising
line of future work is to extend to the neuro-fuzzy approach.
297


REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

Boehm, B.W., “Software Engineering Economics,” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA, 1994. [22] Tadayon, N., “Neural network approach for software cost estimation,”
International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC 2005),
Volume: 2, on page(s): 815- 818, 2005. 22.
Chiu NH, Huang SJ, “The Adjusted Analogy-Based Software Effort Estimation Based on
Similarity Distances,” Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 628-640,
2007.
G. H. Subramanian, P. C. Pendharkar, and M. Wallace, "An Empirical Study of the Effect of
Complexity, Platform, and Program Type on Software Development Effort of Business
Applications," Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 541-553, 2006.
Heiat A, “Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Regression Models for Estimating
Software Development Effort,” Journal of Information and Software Technology, Volume 44,
Issue 15, pp 911- 922, 2002.
Huang SJ, Lin CY, Chiu NH, “Fuzzy Decision Tree Approach for Embedding Risk
Assessment Information into Software Cost Estimation Model,” Journal of Information
Science and Engineering, Volume 22, Number 2, pp 297–313, 2006.
Hughes, R.T., “An evaluation of machine learning techniques for software effort estimation,”
University of Brighton, 1996.
Jeffery R, Ruhe M,Wieczorek I, “Using Public Domain Metrics to Estimate Software
Development Effort,” In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics,
IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 16–27, 2001.
Jorgen M, Sjoberg D.I.K, “The Impact of Customer Expectation on Software Development
Effort Estimates” International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier, pp 317-325, 2004.
Jørgensen. M., “A Review of Studies on Expert Estimation of Software Development Effort,”
Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 70, pp. 37-60, 2004.
Jorgerson, M., “Experience with accuracy of software maintenance task effort prediction
models,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Volume 21 (8), 674–681, 1995.
K. Srinivasan and D. Fisher, "Machine learning approaches to estimating software
development effort," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 126-137, 1995.
P.V.G.D. Prasad Redd, CH.V.M.K. Hari, T. Srinivasa Rao, Multi Objective Particle Swarm
Optimization for Software Cost Estimation, International Journal of Computer Applications
(0975 – 8887) Volume 32– No.3, October, 2011.
P.V.G.D. Prasad Reddy and CH.V.M.K. Hari, A Fine parameter tuning for COCOMO 81
software effort estimation using Particle swarm optimization, A. Iman and H.O. Siew, Soft
Computing Approach for Software Cost Estimation, Int.J. of Software Engineering, IJSE
Vol.3 No.1, pp.1-10, January 2010.
Srinivasa Rao et al, Predictive and Stochastic Approach for Software Effort Estimation, Int. J.
of Software Engineering, IJSE Vol. 6 No. 1 January 2013.
Peram Subba Rao, Dr.K.Venkata Rao and Dr.P.Suresh Varma, “A Novel Software Interval
Type - 2 Fuzzy Effort Estimation Model using S-Fuzzy Controller With Mean and Standard
Deviation”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology (IJCET), Volume 4,
Issue 3, 2013, pp. 477 - 490, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6375.
S.HemaChandra and Dr.R.V.S.Satyanarayana, “Temperature Control of Transformers using
Soft Computing Techniques”, International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology
(IJCET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 133 - 137, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online:
0976 – 6375.

298

50120130406033

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 50120130406033

Similar to 50120130406033 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

50120130406033