A fuzzy logic based set of measures for software project similarity: validation and possible improvements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The software project similarity attribute has not yet been the subject of in-depth study, even though it is often used when estimating software development effort by analogy. Among the inadequacies identified (Shepperd et al.) in most of the proposed measures for the software project similarity attribute, the most critical is that they are used only when the software projects are described by numerical variables (interval, ratio or absolute scale). However, in practice, many factors which describe software projects, such as the experience of programmers and the complexity of modules, are measured in terms of an ordinal (or nominal) scale composed of qualifications such as `very low', `low' and `high'. To overcome this limitation, we propose a set of new measures for similarity when the software projects are described by categorical data. These measures are based on fuzzy logic: the categorical data are represented by fuzzy sets and the process of computing the various measures uses fuzzy reasoning. In this work, the proposed measures are validated by means of an axiomatic validation approach, using a set of axioms representing our intuition about the similarity attribute and verifying whether or not each measure contradicts any of the axioms. We also present in this paper the results of an empirical validation of our similarity measures, based on the COCOMO'81 database.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".