MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adaptive Fine-Tuning for Multi-Class Classification Over Software Requirement Data

2025· article· W7125603952 on OpenAlexaff
Savaş Yıldırım, Mücahit Çevik, Ayse Basar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware requirementsSoftwareRobustness (evolution)Transfer of learningPoolingTask (project management)Field (mathematics)Deep learningSoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of software requirement specifications (SRS) using Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods has been an important study area in the software engineering field in recent years. Especially thanks to the advances brought by deep learning and transfer learning approaches in NLP, SRS data can be utilized for various learning tasks more easily. In this study, we employ a three-stage domain-adaptive fine-tuning approach for three prediction tasks regarding software requirements, which improve the model robustness on a real distribution shift. The multi-class classification tasks involve predicting the type, priority and severity of the requirement texts specified by the users. We compare our results with strong classification baselines such as word embedding pooling and Sentence BERT, and show that the adaptive fine-tuning leads to performance improvements across the tasks. We find that an adaptively fine-tuned model can be specialized to a particular data distribution, which is able to generate accurate results and learns from abundantly available textual data in software engineering task management systems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Research→French-language works237,207→