Empirical evaluation of an entropy‐based approach to estimation variation of software development effort
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As effort estimation has gained increasing attention, most of the techniques proposed have focused on the accuracy of effort estimates. Yet no clear conclusions have been drawn on which techniques perform best in all contexts. We propose an entropy‐based approach to effort estimate variation caused by measurement and model error sources whatever the effort estimation technique used. The proposed approach was empirically evaluated by exploring three entropy formulae, four interpolation methods, and two analogy‐based effort estimation approaches (crisp and fuzzy analogy) over seven datasets using the Jackknife evaluation method. The obtained results show that the three entropy formulae have in general the same positive influence on the performance of the entropy‐based approach measured in terms of absolute error of effort deviation. In addition, the spline interpolation outperformed all other interpolation methods, using any of the entropy formulae. Moreover, achievement percentages of the best variants of our approach closely approximated those of the Gaussian distribution confirming that the Gaussian distribution is useful for characterizing effort estimate variation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it