Trust-Based Requirements Traceability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information retrieval (IR) approaches have proven useful in recovering traceability links between free text documentation and source code. IR-based traceability recovery approaches produce ranked lists of traceability links between pieces of documentation and source code. These traceability links are then pruned using various strategies and, finally, validated by human experts. In this paper we propose two contributions to improve the precision and recall of traceability links and, thus, reduces the required human experts' manual validation effort. First, we propose a novel approach, Trustrace, inspired by Web trust models to improve the precision and recall of traceability links: Trustrace uses any traceability recovery approach to obtain a set of traceability links, which rankings are then re-evaluated using a set of other traceability recovery approaches. Second, we propose a novel traceability recovery approach, Histrace, to identify traceability links between requirements and source code through CVS/SVN change logs using a Vector Space Model (VSM). We combine a traditional recovery traceability approach with Histrace to build TrustraceVSM, Histracein which we use Histrace as one expert adding knowledge to the traceability links extracted from CVS/SVN change logs. We apply TrustraceVSM, Histraceon two case studies to compare its traceability links with those recovered using only the VSM-based approach, in terms of precision and recall. We show that TrustraceVSM, Histraceimproves with statistical significance the precision of the traceability links while also improving recall but without statistical significance.
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 | 0.012 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".