  Software quality assurance activities become increasingly difficult as
software systems become more and more complex and continuously grow in size.
Moreover, testing becomes even more expensive when dealing with large-scale
systems. Thus, to effectively allocate quality assurance resources, researchers
have proposed fault prediction (FP) which utilizes machine learning (ML) to
predict fault-prone code areas. However, ML algorithms typically make use of
stochastic elements to increase the prediction models' generalizability and
efficiency of the training process. These stochastic elements, also known as
nondeterminism-introducing (NI) factors, lead to variance in the training
process and as a result, lead to variance in prediction accuracy and training
time. This variance poses a challenge for reproducibility in research. More
importantly, while fault prediction models may have shown good performance in
the lab (e.g., often-times involving multiple runs and averaging outcomes),
high variance of results can pose the risk that these models show low
performance when applied in practice. In this work, we experimentally analyze
the variance of a state-of-the-art fault prediction approach. Our experimental
results indicate that NI factors can indeed cause considerable variance in the
fault prediction models' accuracy. We observed a maximum variance of 10.10% in
terms of the per-class accuracy metric. We thus, also discuss how to deal with
such variance.
