Skip to main content

Using NLP to Detect Requirements Defects: An Industrial Experience in the Railway Domain

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10153))

Abstract

Context and motivation: In the railway safety-critical domain requirements documents have to abide to strict quality criteria. Rule-based natural language processing (NLP) techniques have been developed to automatically identify quality defects in natural language requirements. However, the literature is lacking empirical studies on the application of these techniques in industrial settings. Question/problem: Our goal is to investigate to which extent NLP can be practically applied to detect defects in the requirements documents of a railway signalling manufacturer. Principal idea/results: To address this goal, we first identified a set of typical defects classes, and, for each class, an engineer of the company implemented a set of defect-detection patterns by means of the GATE tool for text processing. After a preliminary analysis, we applied the patterns to a large set of 1866 requirements previously annotated for defects. The output of the patterns was further inspected by two domain experts to check the false positive cases. Contribution: This is one of the first works in which defect detection NLP techniques are applied on a very large set of industrial requirements annotated by domain experts. We contribute with a comparison between traditional manual techniques used in industry for requirements analysis, and analysis performed with NLP. Our experience tells that several discrepancies can be observed between the two approaches. The analysis of the discrepancies offers hints to improve the capabilities of NLP techniques with company specific solutions, and suggests that also company practices need to be modified to effectively exploit NLP tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/BenedettaRosadini/QuARS-/tree/master/jape.

  2. 2.

    The dataset appears balanced since VE1 continued to select requirements until a balanced number of accepted and rejected requirements was obtained.

  3. 3.

    The requirement was not rejected since it was clarified by other subsequent requirements. This violates the guideline (c) that require requirements to be stand-alone, but the defect was not considered crucial.

References

  1. Alvarez, S.A.: An exact analytical relation among recall, precision, and classification accuracy in information retrieval. Technical report BCCS-02-01. Computer Science Department, Boston College (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., Zimmer, F.: Automated checking of conformance to requirements templates using natural language processing. IEEE TSE 41(10), 944–968 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berry, D., Gacitua, R., Sawyer, P., Tjong, S.F.: The case for dumb requirements engineering tools. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2012. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 211–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28714-5_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From contract drafting to software specification: linguistic sources of ambiguity (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonin, F., Dell’Orletta, F., Montemagni, S., Venturi, G.: A contrastive approach to multi-word extraction from domain-specific corpora. In: LREC 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. CENELEC: EN 50128: 2011: Railway applications - communication, signalling and processing systems - software for railway control and protection systems. Technical report (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., Roeck, A.N.D., Willis, A.: Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: RE 2006, pp. 56–65 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cunningham, H.: GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput. Humanit. 36(2), 223–254 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cutts, M.: The Plain English Guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Canfora, G.: Empirical principles and an industrial case study in retrieving equivalent requirements via natural language processing techniques. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(1), 18–44 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Femmer, H., Fernández, D.M., Wagner, S., Eder, S.: Rapid quality assurance with requirements smells. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 190–213 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Femmer, H., Kučera, J., Vetrò, A.: On the impact of passive voice requirements on domain modelling. In: ESEM 2014, p. 21. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ferrari, A., Gnesi, S.: Using collective intelligence to detect pragmatic ambiguities. In: RE 2012, pp. 191–200 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gleich, B., Creighton, O., Kof, L.: Ambiguity detection: towards a tool explaining ambiguity sources. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Trentanni, G.: An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 20(1), 53–62 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kang, N., van Mulligen, E.M., Kors, J.A.: Comparing and combining chunkers of biomedical text. J. Biomed. Inform. 44(2), 354–360 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Manning, C.D.: Part-of-speech tagging from 97% to 100%: is it time for some linguistics? In: Gelbukh, A.F. (ed.) CICLing 2011. LNCS, vol. 6608, pp. 171–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19400-9_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Mich, L., Franch, M., Inverardi, P.N.: Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. REJ 9(1), 40–56 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tjong, S.F., Berry, D.M.: The design of SREE — a prototype potential ambiguity finder for requirements specifications and lessons learned. In: Doerr, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) REFSQ 2013. LNCS, vol. 7830, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang, H., Roeck, A.N.D., Gervasi, V., Willis, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements. REJ 16(3), 163–189 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Ferrari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rosadini, B. et al. (2017). Using NLP to Detect Requirements Defects: An Industrial Experience in the Railway Domain. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10153. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54044-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54045-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics