MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010304830 · doi:10.1142/s0218488508005650

CALIBRATING FUNCTION POINT BACKFIRING CONVERSION RATIOS USING NEURO-FUZZY TECHNIQUE

2008· article· en· W2010304830 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMargin (machine learning)Fuzzy logicMetric (unit)Computer scienceSoftwareCalibrationPoint (geometry)Artificial neural networkSizingCode (set theory)AlgorithmMachine learningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software size estimation is an important aspect in software development projects because poor estimations can lead to late delivery, cost overruns and possibly project failure. Backfiring is a popular technique for sizing and predicting the volume of source code by converting the function point metric into source lines of code mathematically using conversion ratios. While this technique is popular and useful, there is a high margin of error in backfiring. This research introduces a new method to reduce this margin of error. Neural networks and fuzzy logic in software prediction models have been demonstrated in the past to have improved performance over traditional techniques. For this reason, a neuro-fuzzy approach is introduced to the backfiring technique to calibrate the conversion ratios. This paper presents the neuro-fuzzy calibration solution and compares the calibrated model against the default conversion ratios currently used by software practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it