EEF-CAS: An Effort Estimation Framework with Customizable Attribute Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing estimation frameworks generally provide one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to produce accurate estimates in most environments. Research has shown that the accomplishment of accurate effort estimates is a long-term process that, above all, requires the extensive collection of effort estimation data by each organization. Collected data is generally characterized by a set of attributes that are believed to affect the development effort. The attributes that most affect development effort vary widely depending on the type of product being developed and the environment in which it is being developed. Thus, any new estimation framework must offer the flexibility of customizable attribute selection. Moreover, such attributes could provide the ability to incorporate empirical evidence and expert judgment into the effort estimation framework. Finally, because software is virtual and therefore intangible, the most important software metrics are notorious for being subjective according to the experience of the estimator. Consequently, a measurement and inference system that is robust to subjectivity and uncertainty must be in place. The Effort Estimation Framework with Customizable Attribute Selection (EEF-CAS) presented in this paper has been designed with the above requirements in mind. It is accompanied with four preparation process steps that allow for any organization implementing it to establish an estimation process. This estimation process facilitates data collection, framework customization to the organization’s needs, its calibration with the organization’s data, and the capability of continual improvement. The proposed framework described in this paper was validated in a real software development organization.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".