Paper detail

Automatically detecting the conflicts between software requirements based on finer semantic analysis

Context: Conflicts between software requirements bring uncertainties to product development. Some great approaches have been proposed to identify these conflicts. However, they usually require the software requirements represented with specific templates and/or depend on other external source which is often uneasy to build for lots of projects in practice. Objective: We aim to propose an approach Finer Semantic Analysis-based Requirements Conflict Detector (FSARC) to automatically detecting the conflicts between the given natural language functional requirements by analyzing their finer semantic compositions. Method: We build a harmonized semantic meta-model of functional requirements with the form of eight-tuple. Then we propose algorithms to automatically analyze the linguistic features of requirements and to annotate the semantic elements for their semantic model construction. And we define seven types of conflicts as long as their heuristic detecting rules on the ground of their text pattern and semantical dependency. Finally, we design and implement the algorithm for conflicts detection. Results: The experiment with four requirement datasets illustrates that the recall of FSARC is nearly 100% and the average precision is 83.88% on conflicts detection. Conclusion: We provide a useful tool for detecting the conflicts between natural language functional requirements to improve the quality of the final requirements set. Besides, our approach is capable of transforming the natural language functional requirements into eight semantic tuples, which is useful not only the detection of the conflicts between requirements but also some other tasks such as constructing the association between requirements and so on.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.

Automatically detecting the conflicts between software requirements based on finer semantic analysis | BZPEER | BZPEER