Software cost estimation with fuzzy models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of effort/cost required for development of software products is inherently associated with uncertainty. In this paper, we are concerned with a fuzzy set-based generalization of the COCOMO model (f-COCOMO). The inputs of the standard COCOMO model include an estimation of project size and an evaluation of other parameters. Rather than using a single number, the software size can be regarded as a fuzzy set (fuzzy number) yielding the cost estimate also in form of a fuzzy set. The paper includes detailed results with this regard by relating fuzzy sets of project size with the fuzzy set of effort. The analysis is carried out for several commonly encountered classes of membership functions (such as triangular and parabolic fuzzy sets). The issue of designer-friendliness of the f-COCOMO model is discussed in detail. Here we emphasize a way of propagation of uncertainty and ensuing visualization of the resulting effort (cost). Furthermore we augment the model by admitting software systems to belong partially to the three main categories (namely embedded, semidetached and organic) and discuss key implications of this generalization and highlight its links with a generalized sensitivity analysis. The experimental part of the study illustrates the approach and contrasts it with the standard numeric version of the COCOMO model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".