汇总n次需求检查结果

Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings
{"title":"汇总n次需求检查结果","authors":"Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings","doi":"10.1145/3593434.3593465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Requirements validation is an important aspect for ensuring high quality software. Commonly used are requirements inspections, where the specification is read from different persons assuming different roles or applying different reading techniques, partly accompanied by checklists. Actual defect detection with requirements inspection is costly, and defect detection rates must be considered low. Therefore, repeated validation is used or validation with multiple inspection groups - known as N-fold inspections. However, this does not only yield more defects found, but also more false positives. In this paper, we investigate how defect aggregation can be used to improve the overall quality of validation. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 22 N-fold inspection groups consisting of four to five reviewers each. Results show that simple aggregation of all results leads to a number of false positives that can actually negatively impact the validation task, while the use of more tailored aggregation strategies can considerably improve the validation of requirements with N-fold inspections.","PeriodicalId":178596,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aggregating N-fold Requirements Inspection Results\",\"authors\":\"Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3593434.3593465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Requirements validation is an important aspect for ensuring high quality software. Commonly used are requirements inspections, where the specification is read from different persons assuming different roles or applying different reading techniques, partly accompanied by checklists. Actual defect detection with requirements inspection is costly, and defect detection rates must be considered low. Therefore, repeated validation is used or validation with multiple inspection groups - known as N-fold inspections. However, this does not only yield more defects found, but also more false positives. In this paper, we investigate how defect aggregation can be used to improve the overall quality of validation. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 22 N-fold inspection groups consisting of four to five reviewers each. Results show that simple aggregation of all results leads to a number of false positives that can actually negatively impact the validation task, while the use of more tailored aggregation strategies can considerably improve the validation of requirements with N-fold inspections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":178596,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3593434.3593465\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3593434.3593465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

需求验证是保证高质量软件的一个重要方面。通常使用的是需求检查,其中从承担不同角色或应用不同阅读技术的不同人员中读取规范,部分地伴随着检查清单。使用需求检查的实际缺陷检测是昂贵的,并且必须考虑到缺陷检测率很低。因此,使用重复验证或与多个检查组进行验证-称为n次检查。然而,这不仅会产生更多的缺陷,还会产生更多的误报。在本文中,我们研究了如何使用缺陷聚合来提高验证的整体质量。因此,我们进行了22个n倍检查组的实验,每个检查组由4 - 5名审稿人组成。结果表明,对所有结果的简单聚合会导致许多误报,这实际上会对验证任务产生负面影响,而使用更定制的聚合策略可以通过n次检查大大提高对需求的验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aggregating N-fold Requirements Inspection Results
Requirements validation is an important aspect for ensuring high quality software. Commonly used are requirements inspections, where the specification is read from different persons assuming different roles or applying different reading techniques, partly accompanied by checklists. Actual defect detection with requirements inspection is costly, and defect detection rates must be considered low. Therefore, repeated validation is used or validation with multiple inspection groups - known as N-fold inspections. However, this does not only yield more defects found, but also more false positives. In this paper, we investigate how defect aggregation can be used to improve the overall quality of validation. Therefore, we conducted an experiment with 22 N-fold inspection groups consisting of four to five reviewers each. Results show that simple aggregation of all results leads to a number of false positives that can actually negatively impact the validation task, while the use of more tailored aggregation strategies can considerably improve the validation of requirements with N-fold inspections.
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