BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Hugo Villamizar

Hugo Villamizar contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software EngineeringMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Catalogue of Concerns for Specifying Machine Learning-Enabled Systems

Requirements engineering (RE) activities for machine learning (ML) are not well-established and researched in the literature. Many issues and challenges exist when specifying, designing, and developing ML-enabled systems. Adding more focus on RE for ML can help to develop more reliable ML-enabled systems. Based on insights collected from previous work and industrial experiences, we propose a catalogue of 45 concerns to be considered when specifying ML-enabled systems, covering five different perspectives we identified as relevant for such systems: objectives, user experience, infrastructure, model, and data. Examples of such concerns include the execution engine and telemetry for the infrastructure perspective, and explainability and reproducibility for the model perspective. We conducted a focus group session with eight software professionals with experience developing ML-enabled systems to validate the importance, quality and feasibility of using our catalogue. The feedback allowed us to improve the catalogue and confirmed its practical relevance. The main research contribution of this work consists in providing a validated set of concerns grouped into perspectives that can be used by requirements engineers to support the specification of ML-enabled systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Towards Perspective-Based Specification of Machine Learning-Enabled Systems

Machine learning (ML) teams often work on a project just to realize the performance of the model is not good enough. Indeed, the success of ML-enabled systems involves aligning data with business problems, translating them into ML tasks, experimenting with algorithms, evaluating models, capturing data from users, among others. Literature has shown that ML-enabled systems are rarely built based on precise specifications for such concerns, leading ML teams to become misaligned due to incorrect assumptions, which may affect the quality of such systems and overall project success. In order to help addressing this issue, this paper describes our work towards a perspective-based approach for specifying ML-enabled systems. The approach involves analyzing a set of 45 ML concerns grouped into five perspectives: objectives, user experience, infrastructure, model, and data. The main contribution of this paper is to provide two new artifacts that can be used to help specifying ML-enabled systems: (i) the perspective-based ML task and concern diagram and (ii) the perspective-based ML specification template.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Efficient Approach for Reviewing Security-Related Aspects in Agile Requirements Specifications of Web Applications

Defects in requirements specifications can have severe consequences during the software development lifecycle. Some of them may result in poor product quality and/or time and budget overruns due to incorrect or missing quality characteristics, such as security. This characteristic requires special attention in web applications because they have become a target for manipulating sensible data. Several concerns make security difficult to deal with. For instance, security requirements are often misunderstood and improperly specified due to lack of security expertise and emphasis on security during early stages of software development. This often leads to unspecified or ill-defined security-related aspects. These concerns become even more challenging in agile contexts, where lightweight documentation is typically produced. To tackle this problem, we designed an approach for reviewing security-related aspects in agile requirements specifications of web applications. Our proposal considers user stories and security specifications as inputs and relates those user stories to security properties via Natural Language Processing. Based on the related security properties, our approach identifies high-level security requirements from the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) to be verified, and generates a reading technique to support reviewers in detecting defects. We evaluate our approach via three experiment trials conducted with 56 novice software engineers, measuring effectiveness, efficiency, usefulness, and ease of use. We compare our approach against using: (1) the OWASP high-level security requirements, and (2) a perspective-based approach as proposed in contemporary state of the art. The results strengthen our confidence that using our approach has a positive impact (with large effect size) on the performance of inspectors in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access