Software process recovery using Recovered Unified Process Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development process for a given software system is a combination of an idealized, prescribed model and a messy set of ad hoc practices. To some degree, process compliance can be enforced by supporting tools that require various steps be followed in order; however, this approach is often perceived as heavyweight and inflexible by developers, who generally prefer that tools support their desired work habits rather than limit their choices. An alternative approach to monitoring process compliance is to instrument the various tools and repositories that developers use - such as version control systems, bug-trackers, and mailing-list archives - and to build models of the de facto development process through observation, analysis, and inference. In this paper, we present a technique for recovering a project's software development processes from a variety of existing artifacts. We first apply unsupervised and supervised techniques - including word-bags, topic analysis, summary statistics, and Bayesian classifiers - to annotate software artifacts by related topics, maintenance types, and non-functional requirements. We map the analysis results onto a time-line based view of the Unified Process development model, which we call Recovered Unified Process Views. We demonstrate our approach for extracting these process views on two case studies: FreeBSD and SQLite.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".