Error leakage and wasted time: sensitivity and effort analysis of a requirements consistency checking process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several techniques are used by requirements engineering practitioners to address difficult problems such as specifying precise requirements while using inherently ambiguous natural language text and ensuring the consistency of requirements. Often, these problems are addressed by building processes/tools that combine multiple techniques where the output from 1 technique becomes the input to the next. While powerful, these techniques are not without problems. Inherent errors in each technique may leak into the subsequent step of the process. We model and study 1 such process, for checking the consistency of temporal requirements, and assess error leakage and wasted time. We perform an analysis of the input factors of our model to determine the effect that sources of uncertainty may have on the final accuracy of the consistency checking process. Convinced that error leakage exists and negatively impacts the results of the overall consistency checking process, we perform a second simulation to assess its impact on the analysts' efforts to check requirements consistency. We show that analyst's effort varies depending on the precision and recall of the subprocesses and that the number and capability of analysts affect their effort. We share insights gained and discuss applicability to other processes built of piped techniques.
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 | 0.020 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".