Software Requirement Risk Prediction Using Enhanced Fuzzy Induction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of most modern software systems is accompanied by a significant level of uncertainty, which can be attributed to the unanticipated activities that may occur throughout the software development process. As these modern software systems become more complex and drawn out, escalating software project failure rates have become a critical concern. These unforeseeable uncertainties are known as software risks, and they emerge from many risk factors inherent to the numerous activities comprising the software development lifecycle (SDLC). Consequently, these software risks have resulted in massive revenue losses for software organizations. Hence, it is imperative to address these software risks, to curb future software system failures. The subjective risk assessment (SRM) method is regarded as a viable solution to software risk problems. However, it is inherently reliant on humans and, therefore, in certain situations, imprecise, due to its dependence on an expert’s knowledge and experience. In addition, the SRM does not allow repeatability, as expertise is not easily exchanged across the different units working on a software project. Developing intelligent modelling methods that may offer more unbiased, reproducible, and explainable decision-making assistance in risk management is crucial. Hence, this research proposes enhanced fuzzy induction models for software requirement risk prediction. Specifically, the fuzzy unordered rule induction algorithm (FURIA), and its enhanced variants based on nested subset selection dichotomies, are developed for software requirement risk prediction. The suggested fuzzy induction models are based on the use of effective rule-stretching methods for the prediction process. Additionally, the proposed FURIA method is enhanced through the introduction of nested subset selection dichotomy concepts into its prediction process. The prediction performances of the proposed models are evaluated using a benchmark dataset, and are then compared with existing machine learning (ML)-based and rule-based software risk prediction models. From the experimental results, it was observed that the FURIA performed comparably, in most cases, to the rule-based and ML-based models. However, the FURIA nested dichotomy variants were superior in performance to the conventional FURIA method, and rule-based and ML-based methods, with the least accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), and Mathew’s correlation coefficient (MCC), with values of approximately 98%.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".