Goal and Preference Identification through natural language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal models allow efficient representation of stakeholder goals and alternative ways by which these can be satisfied. Preferences over goals in the goal model are then used to specify criteria for selecting alternatives that fit specific contexts, situations and strategies. Given such preferences, automated reasoning tools allow for efficient exploration of such alternatives. Nevertheless, to be amenable to such automated processing, goals and preferences need to be specified in a formal language, making automated processing inaccessible to the very bearers of goals and preferences, i.e., the stakeholders. We combine natural language processing techniques to allow specification of preferences through natural language statements. The natural language statement is first matched through regular expressions to distinguish between the preference component and the goal component. The former is then mapped to a preferential strength measure, while the latter is used to identify the relevant goal in the goal model through statistical semantic similarity techniques. The result constitutes a formal representation that can be used for alternatives analysis. In this way, stakeholders can access advanced goal reasoning techniques through simple natural language preference expressions, facilitating their decision making in various requirements analysis contexts. An experimental evaluation with human participants shows that the proposed system is of substantial precision and that a mapping from natural preferential verbalizations to predefined preferential strength labels is possible through sampling from crowds.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it