MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151949169 · doi:10.1109/iwpse.2005.8

Change Impact Analysis for Requirement Evolution using Use Case Maps

2006· article· en· W2151949169 on OpenAlexaff
Jameleddine Hassine, Juergen Rilling, Jim Hewitt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange impact analysisComputer scienceSoftware engineeringSlicingSoftware requirements specificationRequirements analysisProcess (computing)Software systemSoftwareDependency (UML)Software evolutionSystems analysisSystems engineeringSoftware constructionEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changing customer needs and computer technology are the driving factors influencing software evolution. There is a need to assess the impact of these changes on existing software systems. Requirement specification is gaining increasingly attention as a critical phase of software systems development process. In particular for larger systems, it quickly becomes difficult to comprehend what impact a requirement change might have on the overall system or parts of the system. Thus, the development of techniques and tools to support the evolution of requirement specifications becomes an important issue. In this paper we present a novel approach to change impact analysis at the requirement level. We apply both slicing and dependency analysis at the use case map specification level to identify the potential impact of requirement changes on the overall system. We illustrate our approach and its applicability with a case study conducted on a simple telephony system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207