Parallel fuzzy cognitive maps as a tool for modeling software development projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) are useful tool for simulating and analyzing dynamic systems. The FCMs have a very simple structure, and thus are very easy to comprehend and use. Despite of the simplicity, they have been successfully adopted in many different areas, such as electrical engineering, medicine political science, international relations, military science, history: supervisory systems, etc. Software development is a complex process, and there are many factors that influence its progress. To effectively handle larger development processes, they are usually divided into subtasks, which are assigned to different teams of workers, and often are performed in parallel. However, some constraints that impose particular sequence of realization of these subtasks, i.e. some tasks cannot be started before completing others, usually exist. Proper division of a project into subtasks and establishing relations between them are essential to correctly manage software projects. Neglecting these constraints often leads to problems that, in consequence, cause misestimating the overall time and budget. This paper introduces a new architecture of FCM, which combines a number of simple FCM models that work simultaneously into a novel parallel FCMs model. It uses a special purpose coordinator module to synchronize simulation of each FCM model. This approach extends application of FCMs to complex systems, which contain multiple subtasks that run in parallel, and thus must be simulated with multiple FCM models. In addition, application of parallel FCMs to analyze and design software development processes is presented. FCM models are focused on simulating and analyzing factors, such as progress and communication, and their relationships, which are based on theoretical research studies and practical implementations. The parallel FCM model is used to simulate complex projects where multiple tasks exist. The paper is based on our previous work where FCM models, which describe relationships between the above factors for individual development tasks, were developed. The newly proposed architecture allows for efficient analysis of dependences between tasks performed in parallel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".