MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246653382 · doi:10.1109/raise.2015.12

Recommending Features and Feature Relationships from Requirements Documents for Software Product Lines

2015· article· en· W4246653382 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware product lineSoftware engineeringHeuristicsSoftwareFeature modelCategorizationFeature (linguistics)Product (mathematics)Software systemKey (lock)Software developmentData miningArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature models are a key element in software product lines, representing the supported features and their interrelationships within a family of software products. Recommendation systems for software engineering (RSSEs) are potentially useful in supporting the extraction, maintenance, and categorization of feature models. This paper focuses on the design and implementation of an RSSE to automatically recommend features for software product lines, the types of these features, and how they could be related to each other. Such a recommender should save time and tedium over doing the work manually. We present FFRE, a prototype recommendation tool for the extraction of features and their relationships from software requirements specification (SRS) documents. FFRE is based on natural language processing (NLP) techniques and heuristics. FFRE is evaluated qualitatively from four SRS documents and compared against other tools and approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it