软件工程中证据搜索与选择的自动化支持:一个跨领域的系统映射

B. Napoleão, Fábio Petrillo, Sylvain Hallé
{"title":"软件工程中证据搜索与选择的自动化支持:一个跨领域的系统映射","authors":"B. Napoleão, Fábio Petrillo, Sylvain Hallé","doi":"10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Searching and selecting relevant evidence is crucial to answer research questions from secondary studies in Software Engineering (SE). The activities of search and selection of studies are labour-intensive, time-consuming and demand automation support. Objective: Our goal is to identify and summarize the state-of-the-art on automation support for searching and selecting evidence for secondary studies in SE. Method: We performed a systematic mapping on existing automating support to search and select evidence for secondary studies in SE, expanding our investigation in a cross-domain study addressing advancements from the medical field. Results: Our results show that the SE field has a variety of tools and Text Classification (TC) approaches to automate the search and selection activities. However, medicine has more well-established tools with a larger adoption than SE. Cross-validation and experiment are the most adopted methods to assess TC approaches. Furthermore, recall and precision are the most adopted assessment metrics. Conclusion: Automated approaches for searching and selecting studies in SE have not been applied in practice by SE researchers. Integrated and easy-to-use automated approaches addressing consolidated TC techniques can bring relevant advantages on workload and time saving for SE researchers who conduct secondary studies.","PeriodicalId":435977,"journal":{"name":"2021 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated Support for Searching and Selecting Evidence in Software Engineering: A Cross-domain Systematic Mapping\",\"authors\":\"B. Napoleão, Fábio Petrillo, Sylvain Hallé\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Searching and selecting relevant evidence is crucial to answer research questions from secondary studies in Software Engineering (SE). The activities of search and selection of studies are labour-intensive, time-consuming and demand automation support. Objective: Our goal is to identify and summarize the state-of-the-art on automation support for searching and selecting evidence for secondary studies in SE. Method: We performed a systematic mapping on existing automating support to search and select evidence for secondary studies in SE, expanding our investigation in a cross-domain study addressing advancements from the medical field. Results: Our results show that the SE field has a variety of tools and Text Classification (TC) approaches to automate the search and selection activities. However, medicine has more well-established tools with a larger adoption than SE. Cross-validation and experiment are the most adopted methods to assess TC approaches. Furthermore, recall and precision are the most adopted assessment metrics. Conclusion: Automated approaches for searching and selecting studies in SE have not been applied in practice by SE researchers. Integrated and easy-to-use automated approaches addressing consolidated TC techniques can bring relevant advantages on workload and time saving for SE researchers who conduct secondary studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":435977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2021 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2021 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 47th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:搜索和选择相关证据对于回答软件工程(SE)中学研究中的研究问题至关重要。搜索和选择研究的活动是劳动密集型的,费时的,需要自动化支持。目的:我们的目标是识别和总结最先进的自动化支持搜索和选择二级研究的证据。方法:我们对现有的自动化支持进行了系统的映射,以搜索和选择SE二级研究的证据,扩大了我们在跨领域研究中的调查,解决了医学领域的进展。结果:我们的研究结果表明,SE领域有多种工具和文本分类(TC)方法来自动化搜索和选择活动。然而,医学上有比SE更成熟的工具和更广泛的采用。交叉验证和实验是最常用的评估方法。此外,召回率和精度是最常用的评估指标。结论:SE研究人员尚未在实践中应用自动检索和选择SE研究的方法。集成和易于使用的自动化方法解决综合TC技术可以为进行二次研究的SE研究人员带来相关的工作量和节省时间的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated Support for Searching and Selecting Evidence in Software Engineering: A Cross-domain Systematic Mapping
Context: Searching and selecting relevant evidence is crucial to answer research questions from secondary studies in Software Engineering (SE). The activities of search and selection of studies are labour-intensive, time-consuming and demand automation support. Objective: Our goal is to identify and summarize the state-of-the-art on automation support for searching and selecting evidence for secondary studies in SE. Method: We performed a systematic mapping on existing automating support to search and select evidence for secondary studies in SE, expanding our investigation in a cross-domain study addressing advancements from the medical field. Results: Our results show that the SE field has a variety of tools and Text Classification (TC) approaches to automate the search and selection activities. However, medicine has more well-established tools with a larger adoption than SE. Cross-validation and experiment are the most adopted methods to assess TC approaches. Furthermore, recall and precision are the most adopted assessment metrics. Conclusion: Automated approaches for searching and selecting studies in SE have not been applied in practice by SE researchers. Integrated and easy-to-use automated approaches addressing consolidated TC techniques can bring relevant advantages on workload and time saving for SE researchers who conduct secondary studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信