skip to main content
10.1145/2245276.2231939acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A clustering-based approach for discovering flaws in requirements specifications

Published:26 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present the application of a clustering algorithm to exploit lexical and syntactic relationships occurring between natural language requirements. Our experiments conducted on a real-world data set highlight a correlation between clustering outliers, i.e., requirements that are marked as "noisy" by the clustering algorithm, and requirements presenting "flaws". Those flaws may refer to an incomplete explanation of the behavioral aspects, which the requirement is supposed to provide. Furthermore, flaws may also be caused by the usage of inconsistent terminology in the requirement specification. We evaluate the ability of our proposed algorithm to effectively discover such kind of flawed requirements. Evaluation is performed by measuring the accuracy of the algorithm in detecting a set of flaws in our testing data set, which have been previously manually-identified by a human assessor.

References

  1. P. Achananuparp, X. Hu, and X. Shen. The evaluation of sentence similarity measures. In Proc. of DaWaK '08, pages 305--316, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. A. Alvarez. An exact analytical relation among recall, precision, and classification accuracy in information retrieval. Technical Report BCCS-02-01, Computer Science Department, Boston College, June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Boyd, D. Zowghi, and V. Gervasi. Optimal-constraint lexicons for requirements specifications. In Proc. of REFSQ'07, pages 203--217, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Casamayor, D. Godoy, and M. Campo. Identification of non-functional requirements in textual specifications: A semi-supervised learning approach. IST, 52: 436--445, April 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. N. o. Dag, V. Gervasi, S. Brinkkemper, and B. Regnell. A linguistic-engineering approach to large-scale requirements management. IEEE Software, 22: 32--39, Janaury 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Fitzgerald, E. Letier, and A. Finkelstein. Early failure prediction in feature request management systems. In Proc. of RE'11, pages 229--238, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. H. Hayes, G. Antoniol, and Y.-G. Guéhéneuc. Prereqir: Recovering pre-requirements via cluster analysis. In Proc. of WCRE '08, pages 165--174, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Kaufman and P. Rousseeuw. Finding Groups in Data An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Wiley Interscience, New York, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Y. Ko, S. Park, J. Seo, and S. Choi. Using classification techniques for informal requirements in the requirements analysis-supporting system. IST, 49: 1128--1140, November 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. V. I. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8): 707--710, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Lucchese, S. Orlando, R. Perego, F. Silvestri, and G. Tolomei. Identifying task-based sessions in search engine query logs. In Proc. of the WSDM '11, pages 277--286, New York City, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. P. Nikora and G. Balcom. Automated identification of ltl patterns in natural language requirements. In Proc. of ISSRE '09, pages 185--194, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009. IEEE Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Palmer and Y. Liang. Indexing and clustering of software requirements specifications. IDT, 18: 283--299, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Park, H. Kim, Y. Ko, and J. Seo. Implementation of an efficient requirements-analysis supporting system using similarity measure techniques. IST, 42: 429--438, April 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. F. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14(3): 130--137, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. P. Tan, M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar. Introduction to Data Mining. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA, May 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A clustering-based approach for discovering flaws in requirements specifications

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SAC '12: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
          March 2012
          2179 pages
          ISBN:9781450308571
          DOI:10.1145/2245276
          • Conference Chairs:
          • Sascha Ossowski,
          • Paola Lecca

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 26 March 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SAC '12 Paper Acceptance Rate270of1,056submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader