MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403210207 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3473942

Ensemble Balanced Nested Dichotomy Fuzzy Models for Software Requirement Risk Prediction

2024· article· en· W4403210207 on OpenAlexaff
Ganesh Kumar, Abdullahi Abubakar Imam, Shuib Basri, Ahmad Sobri Hashim, Abdul Ghani Naim, Luiz Fernando Capretz, Abdullateef Oluwagbemiga Balogun, Hussaini Mamman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaUniversiti Teknologi PetronasMinistry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
KeywordsComputer scienceNested set modelFuzzy logicSoftwareFuzzy setData miningArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern software systems are becoming more intricate, making identification of risks in the software requirement phase— a fundamental aspect of the software development life cycle (SDLC)—complex. Inadequate risk assessment may result in the malfunction of a software system, either in the development or production phase. Therefore, risk prediction plays a crucial role in software requirements, serving as the first step in any software project. Hence, developing adaptive predictive models that can offer consistent and explainable insights for handling risk prediction is imperative. This study proposes novel ensemble class balanced nested dichotomy (EBND) fuzzy induction models for risk prediction in software requirement. Specifically, the proposed EBND models employ a hierarchical structure consisting of binary trees featuring distinct nested dichotomies that are generated randomly for each tree. Thereafter, we use an ensemble principle to refine rules generated from the resulting binary tree. The predictive efficacy of the suggested EBND models is further extended by introducing a data sampling method into their prediction process. The inclusion of the data sampling method acts to mitigate the underlying disparity in the class labels that may affect its prediction processes. The efficacy of the EBND models is then evaluated and compared to current solutions using the open-source software risk dataset. The observed findings revealed that the EBND models demonstrated superior predictive capabilities when compared to the conventional models and state-of-the-art methodologies. Specifically, the EBND models achieved an average accuracy threshold value of 98%, as well as high values for the f-measure metric.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207