A program’s bug, fault, or mistake that results in unintended results is known as a software defect or fault. Software flaws are programming errors due to mistakes in the requirements, architecture, or source code. Finding and fixing bugs as soon as they arise is a crucial goal of software development that can be achieved in various ways. So, selecting a handful of optimal subsets of features from any dataset is a prime approach. Indirectly, the classification performance can be improved through the selection of features. A novel approach to feature selection (FS) has been developed, which incorporates the Golden Jackal Optimization (GJO) algorithm, a meta-heuristic optimization technique that draws on the hunting tactics of golden jackals. Combining this algorithm with four classifiers, namely K-Nearest Neighbor, Decision Tree, Quadrative Discriminant Analysis, and Naive Bayes, will aid in selecting a subset of relevant features from software fault prediction datasets. To evaluate the accuracy of this algorithm, we will compare its performance with other feature selection methods such as FSDE (Differential Evolution), FSPSO (Particle Swarm Optimization), FSGA (Genetic Algorithm), and FSACO (Ant Colony Optimization). The result that we got from FSGJO is great for almost all the cases. For many of the results, FSGJO has given higher classification accuracy. By utilizing the Friedman and Holm tests, to determine statistical significance, the suggested strategy has been verified and found to be superior to prior methods in selecting an optimal set of attributes.

The dimensions of microarray datasets are very large, containing noise and redundancy. The problem with microarray datasets is the presence of more features compared to the number of samples, which adversely affects algorithm performance. In other words, the number of columns exceeds the number of rows. Therefore, to extract precise information from microarray datasets, a robust technique is required. Microarray datasets play a critical role in detecting various diseases, including cancer and tumors. This is where feature selection techniques come into play. In recent times, feature selection (FS) has gained significant importance as a data preparation method, particularly for high-dimensional data. It is preferable to address classification problems with fewer features while maintaining high accuracy, as not all features are necessary to achieve this goal. The primary objective of feature selection is to identify the optimal subset of features. In this context, we will employ the Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm. DE is a population-based stochastic search approach that has found widespread use in various scientific and technical domains to solve optimization problems in continuous spaces. In our approach, we will combine DE with three different classification algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), and Logistic Regression (LR). Our analysis will include a comparison of the accuracy achieved by each algorithmic model on each dataset, as well as the fitness error for each model. The results indicate that when feature selection was used the results were better compared to the results where the feature selection was not used.

Microarray data contains a huge amount of features with less number of instances. Extraction of significant information and knowledge from such a huge amount of features that are concealed in this may not be found without the right approaches and instruments. As a result, techniques that can be handled and explored these big amount of data are required. For the analysis and prediction of such massive data sets, the field of machine learning has many kind of approaches and tools for analysis. Here, we will be examining the microarray datsets using traditional machine learning algorithms and models such as Decision Tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR), and random forest (RF).The accuracy of the five machine learning algorithms was compared to determine the outcome. We will also see the various performance metrics as it tells us about how our model has performed and accordingly we can make suitable changes in our models to make it better for the given dataset. From the result it was observed that KNN, SVM, LR, and RF have been shown the accuracies more than 80% and in some cases 100%.