MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387142604 · doi:10.1109/rew57809.2023.00014

AIRE 2023: 10th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Requirements Engineering

2023· article· en· W4387142604 on OpenAlexaff
Sallam Abualhaija, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Juan Trujillo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements Engineering (RE) researchers have employed Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to tackle different notions of requirements quality, have applied the techniques to different case studies and domains, and have used different metrics to assess the performance of their techniques. Given the pervasiveness of AI-based systems in our daily life, recent years have also seen an increasing need for RE techniques to support sound and structured development of AI system, with particular interest in explainability of system behaviour. The primary purpose of the AIRE workshop is to explore synergies between AI and RE in order to identify complex RE problems that could benefit from the application of AI techniques and the other way round, thus addressing RE for AI challenges. The 2023 edition of the workshop received 14 submissions, which were independently reviewed by at least three program committee members. In the end, 9 papers were accepted. All the conflicts of interest were treated seriously and independently. The workshop takes place on September 5, 2023. We hope that you enjoy the AIRE'23 workshop and its proceedings. We believe that in the days when AI is gaining prominence in our daily lives, the RE community cannot neglect the benefits that AI techniques can deliver to the practice of requirements engineering. The workshop will feature a keynote by Dr. Alessio Ferrari from CNR-ISTI (Italy) on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering and Society: Blue Skies, Black Holes, and the Job of Requirements Engineers. We look forward to seeing you all at this workshop and the future editions. We are very grateful to the Program Committee members and authors of the submissions for their hard work and dedication in putting together this program. We would like to thank you all for your participation in AIRE'23.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207