nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2021

Requirements and GitHub Issues: An Automated Approach for Quality Requirements Classification

verfasst von: J. Manuel Pérez-Verdejo, Á. J. Sánchez-García, J. O. Ocharán-Hernández, E. Mezura-Montes, K. Cortés-Verdín

Erschienen in: Programming and Computer Software | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In the development of quality software, critical decisions related to planning, estimating, and managing resources are bound to the correct and timely identification of the system needs. In particular, the process of classifying this customer input into software requirements categories tends to become tedious and error-prone when it comes to large-scale systems. On the ground described by a complementary systematic literature review, this research introduces a proposal on the application of Machine Learning techniques for automated software requirements classification. In this regard, the training and later hyperparameter optimization through Differential Evolution of five classification models are carried out based on quality attributes examples found in the available literature. As a case study, these models are tested with issue reports collected from five open-source projects at GitHub to identify quality-attributes-related knowledge on such user feedback. The finding of the most characteristic terms by quality attribute through the TF-IDF algorithm stands out from the training. The results show a moderately high ability to classify other generic software requirements correctly, achieving a Geometric Mean of up to 82.51%. However, the same classifiers applied to issue reports showed significant difficulties identifying information related to quality attributes, since an F-Score no greater than 50% was reached.

Vorheriger Artikel Comparing Two Learning Curves Approaches to Predict the Product Delivery Rate in a Software Factory Contract

Nächster Artikel Generation of Graphs for the Identification of Various Types of Scientific Collaboration in an Academic Institution

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/90455

https://github.com/repository

Young, R.R., The Requirements Engineering Handbook, Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2004.

Dick, J., Hull, E., and Jackson, K., Requirements Engineering, Cham: Springer Int. Publ., 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61073-3CrossRefMATH

Davis, A.M., Just Enough Requirements Management: Where Software Development Meets Marketing, Dorset House Publ. Co., 2005.

Glinz, M., A Glossary of Requirements Engineering Terminology, Zurich, 2017.

Wiegers, K.E. and Beatty, J., Software Requirements, 3rd ed., Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press, 2013.

Hochmuller, E., Requirements classification as a first step to grasp quality requirements, Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations of Software Quality, Barcelona, 1997.

Lauesen, S., Software Requirements: Styles and Techniques, Pearson Education, 2002.

Wiegers, K.E., More about Software Requirements: Thorny Issues and Practical Advice, Microsoft Press, 2006.

Sommerville, I., Software Engineering, Pearson Education Limited, 2016.MATH

10.

McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K., and Walters, G.F., Factors in Software Quality, New York, 1977.

11.

Bass, L., Clements, P., and Kazman, R., Software Architecture in Practice, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley Professional, 2012.

12.

Tello-Rodríguez, M., Ocharán-Hernández, J.O., Pérez-Arriaga, J.C., Limón, X., and Sánchez-García, Á.J., A design guide for usable web APIs, Program. Comput. Software, 2020, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768820080241CrossRef

13.

Meth, H., Brhel, M., and Maedche, A., The state of the art in automated requirements elicitation, Inf. Software Technol., 2013, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1695–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.03.008CrossRef

14.

Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S., Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, Durham, 2007.

15.

Pérez-Verdejo, J.M., Sánchez-García, A.J., and Ocharán-Hernández, J.O., A systematic literature review on machine learning for automated requirements classification, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. in Software Engineering Research and Innovation (CONISOFT), Nov. 2020, pp. 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/CONISOFT50191.2020.00014

16.

Abad, Z.S.H., Karras, O., Ghazi, P., Glinz, M., Ruhe, G., and Schneider, K., What works better? A study of classifying requirements, Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), Lisbon, 2017, pp. 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.36

17.

Baker, C., Deng, L., Chakraborty, S., and Dehlinger, J., Automatic multi-class non-functional software requirements classification using neural networks, Proc. 43rd IEEE Annu. Computer Software and Applications Confer. (COMPSAC), Milwaukee, WI, July 2019, vol. 2, pp. 610–615. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2019.10275

18.

Dekhtyar, A. and Fong, V., RE data challenge: requirements identification with Word2Vec and TensorFlow, Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), Lisbon, 2017, pp. 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.26

19.

Iqbal, T., Elahidoost, P., and Lucio, L., A bird’s eye view on requirements engineering and machine learning, Proc. Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conf., APSEC, Putrajaya, Dec. 2019, vol. 2018-Decem, pp. 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2018.00015

20.

Jindal, R., Malhotra, R., and Jain, A., Automated classification of security requirements, Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), Jaipur, 2016, pp. 2027–2033. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2016.7732349

21.

Kurtanovic, Z. and Maalej, W., Automatically classifying functional and non-functional requirements using supervised machine learning, Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), Lisbon, Sep. 2017, pp. 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.82

22.

Li, C., Huang, L., Ge, J., Luo, B., and Ng, V., Automatically classifying user requests in crowdsourcing requirements engineering, J. Syst. Software, 2018, vol. 138, pp. 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.028CrossRef

23.

Lu, M. and Liang, P., Automatic classification of non-functional requirements from augmented app user reviews, Proc. 21st Int. Conf. on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Karlskrona, 2017, pp. 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084241

24.

Marinho, M., Arruda, D., Wanderley, F., and Lins, A., A systematic approach of dataset definition for a supervised machine learning using NFR framework, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), Coimbra, 2018, pp. 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2018.00024

25.

Riaz, M., King, J., Slankas, J., and Williams, L., Hidden in plain sight: automatically identifying security requirements from natural language artifacts, Proc. 22nd IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), Karlskrona, Aug. 2014, pp. 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2014.6912260

26.

Sharma, R., Bhatia, J., and Biswas, K.K., Automated identification of business rules in requirements documents, Proc. IEEE Int. Advance Computing Conf. (IACC), Gurgaon, Feb. 2014, pp. 1442–1447. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAdCC.2014.6779538

27.

Taj, S., Arain, Q., Memon, I., and Zubedi, A., To apply data mining for classification of crowd sourced software requirements, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Software and Information Engineering, Cairo, 2019, pp. 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328833.3328837

28.

Wang, C., Zhang, F., Liang, P., Daneva, M., and van Sinderen, M., Can app changelogs improve requirements classification from app reviews? An exploratory study, Proc. 12th ACM/IEEE Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Oulu, 2018, pp. 43:1–43:4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3267428

29.

Rodgers, M., et al., Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function, Evaluation, 2009, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389008097871CrossRef

30.

Mitchell, T.M., Machine Learning, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill, 1997.MATH

31.

Sayyad Shirabad, J. and Menzies, T.J., The PROMISE repository of software engineering databases, 2005. http://promise.site.uottawa.ca/SERepository

32.

ISO/IEC Standard no. 25010:2011: Systems and Software Engineering. Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and Software Quality Models, 2011.

33.

Wang, W., Mahakala, K.R., Gupta, A., Hussein, N., and Wang, Y., A linear classifier based approach for identifying security requirements in open source software development, J. Ind. Inf. Integr., 2019, vol. 14, pp. 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2018.11.001

34.

Leibzon, W., Social network of software development at GitHub, Proc. IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), San Francisco, Aug. 2016, pp. 1374–1376. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752419

35.

Bissyandé, T.F., Lo, D., Jiang, L., Réveillère, L., Klein, J., and Traon, Y.L., Got issues? Who cares about it? A large scale investigation of issue trackers from GitHub, Proc. 24th IEEE Int. Symp. on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Pasadena, CA, Nov. 2013, pp. 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSRE.2013.6698918

36.

Nielsen, J., 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design, Nielsen Norman Group, 1994.

37.

Fayyad, U.M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., and Smyth, P., Knowledge discovery and data mining: towards a unifying framework, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD’96, Portland, 1996, vol. 96, pp. 82–88.

38.

Miller, R.E., The Quest for Software Requirements, Oconomowoc, WI: MavenMark Books, 2009.

39.

Ferrari, A., Spagnolo, G.O., and Gnesi, S., PURE: a dataset of public requirements documents, Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), Lisbon, 2017, pp. 502–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.29

40.

Shehata, M.S., Eberlei, A., and Hoover, H.J., Requirements reuse and feature interaction management, Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Software and Systems Engineering and Their Applications (ICSSEA’02), Paris, 2002.

41.

Chang, A.X. and Manning, C., SUTime: a library for recognizing and normalizing time expressions, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC12), Istanbul, May 2012, pp. 3735–3740. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/284_Paper.pdf

42.

Finkel, J.R., Grenager, T., and Manning, C., Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling, Proc. 43rd Annu. Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics– ACL’05, Ann Arbor, 2005, pp. 363–370. https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219885

43.

Toutanova, K. and Manning, C.D., Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy partof-speech tagger, Proc. 2000 Joint SIGDAT Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora Held in Conjunction with the 38th Annu. Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, 2000, vol. 13, pp. 63–70. https://doi.org/10.3115/1117794.1117802

44.

Nakayama, H., Kubo, T., Kamura, J., Taniguchi, Y., and Liang, X., Doccano: text annotation tool for human, 2018. https://github.com/doccano/doccano

45.

Kowsari, K., Meimandi, K.J., Heidarysafa, M., Mendu, S., Barnes, L., and Brown, D., Text classification algorithms: a survey, Information (Switzerland), 2019, vol. 10, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10040150

46.

Plisson, J., Lavrac, N., and Mladenic, D., A rule based approach to word lemmatization, Proc. 7th Int. Multiconf. Information Society (IS’04), 2004, pp. 83–86. http://eprints.pascal-network.org/archive/00000715/

47.

Bird, S., Klein, E., and Loper, E., Natural Language Processing with Python, O’Reilly Media, 2009.MATH

48.

Tokunaga, T. and Iwayama, M., Text Categorization Based on Weighted Inverse Document Frequency, 1994.

49.

Pedregosa, F., et al., Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 2011, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830.MathSciNetMATH

50.

Kesavaraj, G. and Sukumaran, S., A study on classification techniques in data mining, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Computing, Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Tiruchengode, July 2013, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT.2013.6726842

51.

Feurer, M. and Hutter, F., Hyperparameter optimization, in Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges, Hutter, F., Kotthoff, L., and Vanschoren, J., Eds., Cham: Springer Int. Publ., 2019, pp. 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05318-5_1CrossRef

52.

Tan, P.-N., Steinbach, M., and Kumar, V., Introduction to Data Mining, 1st ed., Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publ. Co., 2005.

53.

Chawla, N.V., Japkowicz, N., and Kotcz, A., Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets, ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 2004, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007730.1007733CrossRef

54.

Al Helal, M., Haydar, M.S., and Mostafa, S.A.M., Algorithms efficiency measurement on imbalanced data using geometric mean and cross validation, Proc. Int. Workshop on Computational Intelligence (IWCI), Mexico, Dec. 2016, pp. 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWCI.2016.7860349

55.

Sun, Y., Wong, A.K.C., and Kamel, M.S., Classification of imbalances data: a review, Int. J. Pattern Recogn. Artif. Intell., 2009, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218001409007326CrossRef

56.

Lemaître, G., Nogueira, F., and Aridas, C.K., Imbalanced-learn: a Python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 2017, vol. 18, no. 17, pp. 1–5. http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/16-365

57.

Alcalá, R., Gacto, M.J., and Alcalá-Fdez, J., Evolutionary data mining and applications: a revision on the most cited papers from the last 10 years (2007–2017), WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 2018, vol. 8, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1239

58.

Storn, R. and Price, K., Differential evolution: a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim., 1995, vol. 23, no. 1.

59.

Storn, R., On the usage of differential evolution for function optimization, Proc. Conf. on North American Fuzzy Information Processing, Berkeley, Jun. 1996, pp. 519–523. https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.1996.534789

60.

López-Ibáñez, M., Dubois-Lacoste, J., Pérez Cáceres, L., Birattari, M., and Stützle, T., The irace package: iterated racing for automatic algorithm configuration, Oper. Res. Perspect., 2016, vol. 3, pp. 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2016.09.002MathSciNet

61.

Olson, R.S., Bartley, N., Urbanowicz, R.J., and Moore, J.H., Evaluation of a tree-based pipeline optimization tool for automating data science, Proc. Conf. on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation GECCO’16, Denver, 2016, pp. 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1145/2908812.2908918

62.

GitHub, The state of the octoverse, 2019. https://octoverse.github.com. Accessed June 13, 2020.

63.

Russell, M.A., Mining the Social Web: Analyzing Data from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other Social Media Sites, 2nd ed., O’Reilly Media, 2013.

64.

Kuncheva, L.I., Arnaiz-González, Á., Díez-Pastor, J.-F., and Gunn, I.A.D., Instance selection improves geometric mean accuracy: a study on imbalanced data classification, Prog. Artif. Intell., 2019, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-019-00172-4CrossRef

65.

Mueller, A., et al., amueller/word_cloud: WordCloud 1.5.0., Zenodo, Jul. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1322068

66.

Cui, W., Wu, Y., Liu, S., Wei, F., Zhou, M.X., and Qu, H., Context preserving dynamic word cloud visualization, Proc. IEEE Pacific Visualization Symp. (PacificVis), Taipei, March 2010, pp. 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2010.5429600

67.

McInnes, L., Healy, J., and Melville, J., UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction, Feb. 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426

68.

Bengfort, B. and Bilbro, R., Yellowbrick: visualizing the scikit-learn model selection process, J. Open Source Software, 2019, vol. 4, no. 35, p. 1075. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01075CrossRef

69.

Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J., Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and Their Compositionality, Oct. 2013, http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4546

70.

Kuang, S. and Davison, B., Learning word embeddings with chi-square weights for healthcare tweet classification, Appl. Sci., 2017, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7080846CrossRef

71.

Virtanen, P. et al., SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods, 2020, vol. 17, pp. 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2CrossRef

72.

Kavaler, D., Sirovica, S., Hellendoorn, V., Aranovich, R., and Filkov, V., Perceived language complexity in GitHub issue discussions and their effect on issue resolution, Proc. 32nd IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), Urbana-Champaign, IL, Oct. 2017, pp. 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2017.8115620

73.

Rago, A., Marcos, C., and Diaz-Pace, J.A., Using semantic roles to improve text classification in the requirements domain, Lang. Resour. Eval., 2018, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 801–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-017-9406-7CrossRef

74.

Palacio, D.N., McCrystal, D., Moran, K., Bernal-Cardenas, C., Poshyvanyk, D., and Shenefiel, C., Learning to identify security-related issues using convolutional neural networks, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2019, Cleveland, 2019, pp. 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2019.00024

75.

Mashechkin, I.V., Petrovskiy, M.I., Tsarev, D.V., and Chikunov, M.N., Machine learning methods for detecting and monitoring extremist information on the Internet, Program. Comput. Software, 2019, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768819030058CrossRef

76.

Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K., BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding, 2018. arXiv1810.04805

Titel: Requirements and GitHub Issues: An Automated Approach for Quality Requirements Classification
verfasst von: J. Manuel Pérez-Verdejo
Á. J. Sánchez-García
J. O. Ocharán-Hernández
E. Mezura-Montes
K. Cortés-Verdín
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2021
Verlag: Pleiades Publishing
Erschienen in: Programming and Computer Software / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0361-7688
Elektronische ISSN: 1608-3261
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768821080193

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Algorithms for Planning on Computational Model with Redundancy and Uncertainty

SafeComp: Protocol for Certifying Cloud Computations Integrity

Improving the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Requirements Prioritization Using Evolutionary Computing

Algorithm for Constructing Modular Projections for Correcting Multiple Errors Based on a Redundant Residue Number System Using Maximum Likelihood Decoding

The Role of Personality in Motivation to use an Affective Feedback System

Optimization of Neural Network Training for Image Recognition Based on Trigonometric Polynomial Approximation

Premium Partner