Analysis of cluster center initialization of 2FA‐kprototypes analogy‐based software effort estimation
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 Analogy‐based estimation is one of the most widely used techniques for effort prediction in software engineering. However, existing analogy‐based techniques suffer from an inability to correctly handle nonquantitative data. To deal with this limitation, a new technique called 2FA‐kprototypes was proposed and evaluated. 2FA‐kprototypes is based on the use of the fuzzy k‐prototypes clustering technique. Although fuzzy k‐prototypes algorithms are well known for their efficiency in clustering numerical and categorical data, they are sensitive to the selection of initial cluster centers. In this paper, the impact of cluster center initialization on improving the prediction accuracy of 2FA‐kprototypes was analyzed and discussed using two cluster initialization techniques: centrality‐based initialization and density‐based initialization. The performance of 2FA‐kprototypes using these two initialization techniques was evaluated and compared with that of 2FA‐kprototypes using random initialization over four datasets: ISBSG, COCOMO81, USP05‐FT, and USP05‐RQ. The results showed an improvement in the performance of 2FA‐kprototypes in terms of estimation accuracy when the all‐in method is used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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