Journal Home Online First Current Issue Archive For Authors Journal Information 中文版

2021, Volume 22, Issue 7

Abstract

Keywords

Related Research

Back to Top

Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering >> 2021, Volume 22, Issue 7 doi: 10.1631/FITEE.2000126

Analyzing close relations between target artifacts for improving IR-based requirement traceability recovery

Affiliation(s): College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization, Nanjing 211106, China; Key Laboratory of Safety-Critical Software, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Nanjing 211106, China; less

Received: 2020-03-26 Accepted: 2021-07-20 Available online: 2021-07-20
HTML24 PDF 12 Collect 0

Next Previous

Abstract

is an important and costly task that creates trace links from requirements to different software artifacts. These trace links can help engineers reduce the time and complexity of software maintenance. The (IR) technique has been widely used in . It uses the textual similarity between software artifacts to create links. However, if two artifacts do not share or share only a small number of words, the performance of the IR can be very poor. Some methods have been developed to enhance the IR by considering relations between , but they have been limited to code rather than to other types of . To overcome this limitation, we propose an automatic method that combines the IR method with the between . Specifically, we leverage between rather than just text matching from requirements to . Moreover, the method is not limited to the type of when considering the relations between . We conduct experiments on five public datasets and take account of trace links between requirements and different types of software artifacts. Results show that under the same recall, the precisions on the five datasets improve by 40%, 8%, 20%, 4%, and 6%, respectively, compared with the baseline method. The precision on the five datasets improves by an average of 15.6%, showing that our method outperforms the baseline method when working under the same conditions.

Related Research