SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EFFORT ESTIMATION USING CLASSICAL AND FUZZY ANALOGY: A CROSS-VALIDATION COMPARATIVE STUDY
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
Software effort estimation is one of the most important tasks in software project management. Of several techniques suggested for estimating software development effort, the analogy-based reasoning, or Case-Based Reasoning (CBR), approaches stand out as promising techniques. In this paper, the benefits of using linguistic rather than numerical values in the analogy process for software effort estimation are investigated. The performance, in terms of accuracy and tolerance of imprecision, of two analogy-based software effort estimation models (Classical Analogy and Fuzzy Analogy, which use numerical and linguistic values respectively to describe software projects) is compared. Three research questions related to the performance of these two models are discussed and answered. This study uses the International Software Benchmarking Standards Group (ISBSG) dataset and confirms the usefulness of using linguistic instead of numerical values in analogy-based software effort estimation models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it