AI-based Question Answering Assistance for Analyzing Natural-language Requirements

in In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'23), Melbourne 14-20 May 2023 (in press)

Abstract—By virtue of being prevalently written in natural language (NL), requirements are prone to various defects, e.g., inconsistency and incompleteness. As such, requirements are frequently subject to ... [more ▼]

Abstract—By virtue of being prevalently written in natural language (NL), requirements are prone to various defects, e.g., inconsistency and incompleteness. As such, requirements are frequently subject to quality assurance processes. These processes, when carried out entirely manually, are tedious and may further overlook important quality issues due to time and budget pressures. In this paper, we propose QAssist – a question-answering (QA) approach that provides automated assistance to stakeholders, including requirements engineers, during the analysis of NL requirements. Posing a question and getting an instant answer is beneficial in various quality-assurance scenarios, e.g., incompleteness detection. Answering requirements-related questions automatically is challenging since the scope of the search for answers can go beyond the given requirements specification. To that end, QAssist provides support for mining external domain-knowledge resources. Our work is one of the first initiatives to bring together QA and external domain knowledge for addressing requirements engineering challenges. We evaluate QAssist on a dataset covering three application domains and containing a total of 387 question-answer pairs. We experiment with state-of-the-art QA methods, based primarily on recent large-scale language models. In our empirical study, QAssist localizes the answer to a question to three passages within the requirements specification and within the external domain-knowledge resource with an average recall of 90.1% and 96.5%, respectively. QAssist extracts the actual answer to the posed question with an average accuracy of 84.2%. Index Terms—Natural-language Requirements, Question Answering (QA), Language Models, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Natural Language Generation (NLG), BERT, T5. [less ▲]

Automated Handling of Anaphoric Ambiguity in Requirements: A Multi-solution Study

in In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'22), Pittsburgh, PA, USA 22-27 May 2022 (2022, May)

Ambiguity is a pervasive issue in natural-language requirements. A common source of ambiguity in requirements is when a pronoun is anaphoric. In requirements engineering, anaphoric ambiguity occurs when a ... [more ▼]

Ambiguity is a pervasive issue in natural-language requirements. A common source of ambiguity in requirements is when a pronoun is anaphoric. In requirements engineering, anaphoric ambiguity occurs when a pronoun can plausibly refer to different entities and thus be interpreted differently by different readers. In this paper, we develop an accurate and practical automated approach for handling anaphoric ambiguity in requirements, addressing both ambiguity detection and anaphora interpretation. In view of the multiple competing natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) technologies that one can utilize, we simultaneously pursue six alternative solutions, empirically assessing each using a collection of ~1,350 industrial requirements. The alternative solution strategies that we consider are natural choices induced by the existing technologies; these choices frequently arise in other automation tasks involving natural-language requirements. A side-by-side empirical examination of these choices helps develop insights about the usefulness of different state-of-the-art NLP and ML technologies for addressing requirements engineering problems. For the ambiguity detection task, we observe that supervised ML outperforms both a large-scale language model, SpanBERT (a variant of BERT), as well as a solution assembled from off-the-shelf NLP coreference resolvers. In contrast, for anaphora interpretation, SpanBERT yields the most accurate solution. In our evaluation, (1) the best solution for anaphoric ambiguity detection has an average precision of ~60% and a recall of 100%, and (2) the best solution for anaphora interpretation (resolution) has an average success rate of ~98%. [less ▲]

WikiDoMiner: Wikipedia Domain-Specific Miner

in ACM SIGSOFT CONFERENCE ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (2022)

We introduce WikiDoMiner -- a tool for automatically generating domain-specific corpora by crawling Wikipedia. WikiDoMiner helps requirements engineers create an external knowledge resource that is ... [more ▼]

We introduce WikiDoMiner -- a tool for automatically generating domain-specific corpora by crawling Wikipedia. WikiDoMiner helps requirements engineers create an external knowledge resource that is specific to the underlying domain of a given requirements specification (RS). Being able to build such a resource is important since domain-specific datasets are scarce. WikiDoMiner generates a corpus by first extracting a set of domain-specific keywords from a given RS, and then querying Wikipedia for these keywords. The output of WikiDoMiner is a set of Wikipedia articles relevant to the domain of the input RS. Mining Wikipedia for domain-specific knowledge can be beneficial for multiple requirements engineering tasks, e.g., ambiguity handling, requirements classification, and question answering. WikiDoMiner is publicly available on Zenodo under an open-source license (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6672682) [less ▲]

MAANA: An Automated Tool for DoMAin-specific HANdling of Ambiguity

in Companion Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (2021, May)

MAANA (in Arabic: “meaning”) is a tool for performing domain-specific handling of ambiguity in requirements. Given a requirements document as input, MAANA detects the requirements that are potentially ... [more ▼]

MAANA (in Arabic: “meaning”) is a tool for performing domain-specific handling of ambiguity in requirements. Given a requirements document as input, MAANA detects the requirements that are potentially ambiguous. The focus of MAANA is on coordination ambiguity and prepositional-phrase attachment ambiguity; these are two common ambiguity types that have been studied in the requirements engineering literature. To detect ambiguity, MAANA utilizes structural patterns and a set of heuristics derived from a domain-specific corpus. The generated analysis file after running the tool can be reviewed by requirements analysts. Through combining different knowledge sources, MAANA highlights also the requirements that might contain unacknowledged ambiguity. That is when the analysts understand different interpretations for the same requirement, without explicitly discussing it with the other analysts due to time constraints. This artifact paper presents the details of MAANA. MAANA is associated with the ICSE 2021 technical paper titled “Using Domain-specific Corpora for Improved Handling of Ambiguity in Requirements”. The tool is publicly available on GitHub and Zenodo. [less ▲]