Inherent characteristics of traceability artifacts less is more
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes ongoing work to characterize the inherent ease or “traceability” with which a textual artifact can be traced using an automated technique. Software traceability approaches use varied measures to build models that automatically recover links between pairs of natural language documents. Thus far, most of the approaches use a single-step model, such as logistic regression, to identify new trace links. However, such approaches require a large enough training set of both true and false trace links. Yet, the former are by far in the minority, which reduces the performance of such models. Therefore, this paper formulates the problem of identifying trace links as the problem of finding, for a given logistic regression model, the subsets of links in the training set giving the best accuracy (in terms of G-metric) on a test set. Using hill climbing with random restart for subset selection, we found that, for the ChangeStyle dataset, we can classify links with a precision of up to 40% and a recall of up to 66% using a training set as small as one true candidate link (out of 33) and 41 false links. To get better performance and learn the best possible logistic regression classifier, we must “discard” links in the trace dataset that increase noise to avoid learning with links that are not representative. This preliminary work is promising because it shows that few correct examples may perform better than several poor ones. It also shows which inherent characteristics of the artifacts make them good candidates to learn efficient traceability models automatically, i.e., it reveals their traceability.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".