MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401567235 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3443271

A Systematic Literature Review on Requirements Engineering and Maintenance for Embedded Software

2024· article· en· W4401567235 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Fariha, Sanaa Alwidian, Akramul Azim

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware maintenanceSoftware engineeringSoftware requirementsReliability engineeringSystems engineeringSoftwareSoftware constructionSoftware developmentEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embedded software quality is a critical concern in modern engineering, impacting a broad range of applications from spacecraft to complex control systems. Requirements engineering and software maintenance play pivotal roles in ensuring the high reliability and efficiency of embedded systems. This study contributes to the field by presenting a systematic literature review that comprehensively explores existing research on embedded software requirements engineering and maintenance methods. Through the established systematic review process, a thorough analysis of the research trends of methods used for different requirements engineering and maintenance activities was conducted on 79 primary studies. Moreover, the review emphasizes the significance of research on automation techniques and discusses the current status of the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques for both domains. This review serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners by addressing the challenges of limited research in certain domains and pointing to future research directions. Overall, this systematic literature review provides insights into future research prospects in the embedded software requirements engineering and maintenance domain for improved reliability.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207