Paper detail

How to Identify Boundary Conditions with Contrasty Metric?

The boundary conditions (BCs) have shown great potential in requirements engineering because a BC captures the particular combination of circumstances, i.e., divergence, in which the goals of the requirement cannot be satisfied as a whole. Existing researches have attempted to automatically identify lots of BCs. Unfortunately, a large number of identified BCs make assessing and resolving divergences expensive. Existing methods adopt a coarse-grained metric, generality, to filter out less general BCs. However, the results still retain a large number of redundant BCs since a general BC potentially captures redundant circumstances that do not lead to a divergence. Furthermore, the likelihood of BC can be misled by redundant BCs resulting in costly repeatedly assessing and resolving divergences. In this paper, we present a fine-grained metric to filter out the redundant BCs. We first introduce the concept of contrasty of BC. Intuitively, if two BCs are contrastive, they capture different divergences. We argue that a set of contrastive BCs should be recommended to engineers, rather than a set of general BCs that potentially only indicates the same divergence. Then we design a post-processing framework (PPAc) to produce a set of contrastive BCs after identifying BCs. Experimental results show that the contrasty metric dramatically reduces the number of BCs recommended to engineers. Results also demonstrate that lots of BCs identified by the state-of-the-art method are redundant in most cases. Besides, to improve efficiency, we propose a joint framework (JAc) to interleave assessing based on the contrasty metric with identifying BCs. The primary intuition behind JAc is that it considers the search bias toward contrastive BCs during identifying BCs, thereby pruning the BCs capturing the same divergence. Experiments confirm the improvements of JAc in identifying contrastive BCs.

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.