Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?\ast

Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments
of Requirements Specifications?

  
Abstract

Due to their pivotal role in software engineering, considerable effort is spent on the quality assurance of software requirements specifications. As they are mainly described in natural language, relatively few means of automated quality assessment exist. However, we found that clone detection, a technique widely applied to source code, is promising to assess one important quality aspect in an automated way, namely redundancy that stems from copy&paste operations. This paper describes a large-scale case study that applied clone detection to 28 requirements specifications with a total of 8,667 pages. We report on the amount of redundancy found in real-world specifications, discuss its nature as well as its consequences and evaluate in how far existing code clone detection approaches can be applied to assess the quality of requirements specifications in practice.

Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments

of Requirements Specifications?


Elmar Juergens, Florian Deissenboeck,
Martin Feilkas, Benjamin Hummel,
Bernhard Schaetz, Stefan Wagner
Technische Universität München
Garching b. München, Germany and
Christoph Domann, Jonathan Streit
itestra GmbH
Garching b. München, Germany


\@float

copyrightbox[b]

\end@float
\@ssect

Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.1 [Software Engineering]: Requirements/Specifications; D.2.8 [Software Engineering]: Metrics—Product metrics

  • Documentation, Experimentation, Measurement

    • Redundancy, Requirements Specification, Clone Detection

      Software requirements specifications (SRS) are the cornerstone of most software development projects. Due to their pivotal role in the development process, they have a strong impact on the quality of the developed product and on the effort spent on development [?, ?]. Moreover, they are usually the central, and often sole, communication artifact used between customer and contractor. Thus, the quality of SRS is of paramount importance for the success of software development projects. However, SRS are mostly written in natural language and, hence, relatively few techniques for automated quality assessment exist. Due to the size of real-world SRS, which often consist of several hundred pages, this poses a major problem in practice.

      One quality defect, redundancy, however stands out as it may be tackled using clone detection, a technique that is commonly applied to find duplications in source code (cloning). Duplication in source code has been recognized as a problem for software maintenance by both the research community and practitioners [?] as it increases program size and thus the effort for size-related activities such as inspections. Moreover, it increases the effort required for modification, since a change performed on a piece of code often needs to be performed on its duplicates as well. Furthermore, unintentionally inconsistent changes to cloned code frequently lead to errors [?]. Most of the negative effects of cloning in programs also hold for cloning in requirements specifications. As SRS are read and changed often (e. g, for requirements elicitation, software design, and test case specification), redundancy is considered an obstacle to requirements modifiability [?] and listed, for instance, as a major problem in automotive requirements engineering [?].

      Nevertheless, cloning has not been thoroughly investigated in the context of requirements specifications yet. To remedy this situation, this paper presents the results of a large-scale case study. The study was undertaken to find out (1) if real-world requirements specifications contain duplicated information, (2) what kind of information is duplicated, (3) which consequences the duplication of information has on the different software development activities, and (4) if existing clone detection approaches can be applied in practice to identify duplication in SRS in an automated way. In this case study we analyzed 28 requirements specifications with a total of 8,667 pages that describe, amongst others, business information and embedded systems. To conduct the study we applied an adapted version of a state-of-the-art clone detection tool [?] and manually inspected the detection results to identify the inevitable false positives. The case study revealed that the amount of duplicated information varies significantly between SRS; starting from documents with no duplication at all up to documents in which more than 70% of the information is duplicated. On average, requirements specifications in this study were more than 13% larger than they would be without duplication. For one analyzed specification, this increases the effort required for a single inspection by 13 person days.

      Research Problem  Due to their mostly textual nature, requirements specifications nowadays almost fully elude automated quality analysis although they have a paramount role in the software development process. Clone detection, which is commonly applied to find duplication in source code, appears to be a promising technique to identify redundancy in requirements specifications. However, it is currently unclear how much duplicated information requirements specifications do contain, what the consequences of duplication are and if duplication can be detected with existing tools in practice.

      Contributions  We extend the empirical knowledge by a case study that investigates the amount and nature of duplicated text contained in real-world requirements specifications. Based on this, we illustrate the consequences that duplication has on different software development activities. Additionally, we demonstrate that existing clone detection approaches can be successfully adapted to identify duplication in requirements specifications in practice. The tool used in this study is available as open source to be applied by practitioners as well as researchers.

      We use the term requirements specification according to IEEE Std 830-1998 [?] to denote a specification for a particular software product, program, or set of programs that performs certain functions in a specific environment. A single specification can comprise multiple individual documents.

      A requirements specification is interpreted as a single sequence of words. In case it comprises multiple documents, individual word lists are concatenated to form a single list for the requirements specification. Normalization is a function that transforms words to remove subtle syntactic differences between words with similar denotation. A normalized specification is a sequence of normalized words. A specification clone is a (consecutive) substring of the normalized specification with a certain minimal length, appearing at least twice. A clone group contains all clones of a specification that have the same content.

      For analyzing the precision of automated detection, we further distinguish between relevant clone groups and false positives. Clones of a relevant clone group must convey semantically similar information and this information must refer to the system described. Examples of relevant clones are duplicated use case preconditions or system interaction steps. Examples of false positives are duplicated document headers or footers or substrings that contain the last words of one and the first words of the subsequent sentence without conveying meaning.

      Clone coverage denotes the part of a specification that is covered by cloning. It approximates the probability that an arbitrarily chosen specification sentence is cloned at least once. Number of clone groups and clones denotes how many different logical specification fragments have been copied and how often they occur. Blow-up describes how much larger the specification is compared to a hypothetical specification version that contains no clones.

      Document fragments that convey similar information but are not similar on the word level are not considered as clones in this paper. While such redundancy can also be relevant for the quality assessment of requirements specifications, it is outside the scope of this paper.

      This section describes the study that was performed to investigate cloning in requirements specifications and its implications for software engineering in practice.

      We outline the study using the Goal-Question-Metric template as proposed in [?]. The study has the objective to characterize and understand the phenomenon of cloning in requirements specifications. The result is intended to help using clone detection techniques appropriately in the quality assessment of requirements specifications. It is thus performed from the viewpoint of requirements engineers and SRS quality assessors. For this, the extent of cloning in requirements specifications and its effects on software engineering activities is investigated. Therefore, a set of specifications from industrial projects are used as study objects. We further detail the objectives of the study using four research questions:

      Rq 1

      How much cloning do real-world requirements specifications contain?

      Rq 2

      What kind of information is cloned in requirements specifications?

      Rq 3

      What consequences does cloning in requirements specifications have?

      Rq 4

      Can cloning in requirements specifications be detected accurately using existing clone detectors?

      This section gives a high level overview of the study design. Details on its implementation and execution are given in Sec. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?.

      The study uses content analysis of specification documents to answer the research questions. For further explorative analyses the content of source code is also analyzed. The content analysis is performed using a clone detection tool as well as manually.

      First, we assign requirements specifications randomly to pairs of researchers for the further analysis. We do this to reduce any potential bias that is introduced by the researchers. Clone detection (c. f., Sec. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?) is performed on all documents of a specification.

      Next, the researcher pairs perform clone detection tailoring for each specification. For this, they manually inspect detected clones for false positives. Filters are added to the detection configuration so that these false positives no longer occur. The detection is re-run and the detected clones are analyzed. This is repeated until no false positives are found in a random sample of the detected clone groups. In order to answer RQ 4, precision before and after tailoring, categories of false positives and times required for tailoring are recorded.

      The results of the tailored clone detection comprise a report with all clones and clone metrics that are used to answer RQ 1: clone coverage, number of clone groups and clones, and blow-up. Blow-up is measured in relative and absolute terms. Standard values for reading and inspection speeds from the literature are used to quantify the additional effort that this blow-up causes. Blow-up and cloning-induced efforts are used to answer RQ 3.

      For each specification, we qualitatively analyze a random sample of clone groups for the kind of information they contain. We start with an initial categorization from an earlier study [?] and extend it, when necessary, during categorization (formally speaking, we thus employ a mixed theory-based and grounded theory approach [?]). If a clone contains information that can be assigned to more than one category, it is assigned to all suitable categories. The resulting categorization of cloned information in requirements specifications is used to answer RQ 2. In order to ensure a certain level of objectiveness, inter-rater agreement is measured for the resulting categorization.

      In many software projects, SRS are no read-only artifacts but undergo constant revisions to adapt to ever changing requirements. Such modifications are hampered by cloning as changes to duplicated text often need to be carried out in multiple locations. Moreover, if the changes are unintentionally not performed to all affected clones, inconsistencies can be introduced in SRS that later on create additional efforts for clarification. In the worst case, they make it to the implementation of the software system, causing inconsistent behavior of the final product. Studies show that this occurs in practice for inconsistent modifications to code clones [?] – we thus expect that it can also happen in SRS. Hence, in addition to the categories, further noteworthy issues of the clones noticed during manual inspection are documented. Examples are inconsistencies in the duplicated specification fragments. This information is used to for additional answers RQ 3.

      Moreover, on selected specifications, content analysis of the source code of the implementation is performed: we investigate the code corresponding to specification clones in order to classify whether the specification cloning resulted in code cloning, duplicated functionality without cloning, or was resolved through the creation of a shared abstraction. These effects are only given qualitatively. Further quantitative analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.

      In the final step, all collected data is analyzed and interpreted in order to answer the research questions. An overview of the steps of the study is given in Fig. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?.

      Figure \thefigure: Study design overview

      We use 28 requirements specifications as study objects from the domains of administration, automotive, convenience, finance, telecommunication, and transportation. The specified system types comprise business information systems, software development tools, platforms, and embedded systems. The specifications are written in English or German. Their scope ranges from a part to the entire set of requirements of the software systems they describe. For non-disclosure reasons, the systems are named A to Z to AC. An overview is given in Table Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. The specifications were obtained from different organizations, including111Due to non-disclosure reasons, we cannot list all 11 companies from which specifications were obtained.:

        Munich Re Group

      is one of the largest re-insurance companies in the world and employs more than 47,000 people in over 50 locations. For their insurance business, they develop a variety of individual supporting software systems.

        Siemens AG

      is the largest engineering company in Europe. The specification used here was obtained from the business unit dealing with industrial automation.

        MOST Cooperation

      is a partnership of car manufacturers and component suppliers that defined an automotive multimedia protocol. Key partners include Audi, BMW and Daimler.

      The specifications mainly contain natural language text. If present, other content, such as images or diagrams, was ignored during clone detection. Specifications N, U and Z are Microsoft Excel documents. Since they are not organized as printable pages, no page counts are given for them. The remaining specifications are either in Adobe PDF or Microsoft Word format. In some cases, these specifications are generated from requirements management tools. To the best of our knowledge, the duplication encountered in the specifications is not introduced during generation.

      Obviously, the specifications were not sampled randomly, since we had to rely on our relationships with our partners to obtain them. However, we selected specifications from different companies for different types of systems in different domains to increase generalizability of the results.

      Spec Pages Words Spec Pages Words
      A 517 41,482 O 184 18,750
      B 1,013 130,968 P 45 6,977
      C 133 18,447 Q 33 5,040
      D 241 37,969 R 109 15,462
      E 185 37,056 S 144 24,343
      F 42 7,662 T 40 7,799
      G 85 10,076 U n/a 43,216
      H 160 19,632 V 448 95,399
      I 53 6,895 W 211 31,670
      J 28 4,411 X 158 19,679
      K 39 5,912 Y 235 49,425
      L 535 84,959 Z n/a 13,807
      M 233 46,763 AB 3,100 274,489
      N n/a 103,067 AC 696 81,410
      8,667 1,242,765
      Table \thetable: Study Objects

      This section gives detailed information on how the study design was implemented and executed on the study objects.

      For RQ 1, clone detection is performed using the tool ConQAT as described in Sec. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. It is also used to compute the clone measures. Detection is performed with a minimal clone length of 20 words. This threshold was found to provide a good balance between precision and recall during precursory experiments in which clone detection tailoring was applied.

      For RQ 2, if more than 20 clone groups are found for a specification, the manual classification is performed on a random sample of 20 clone groups. Else, all clone groups for a specification are inspected. During inspection, the categorization was extended by 8 categories, 1 was changed, none were removed. In order to improve the quality of the categorization results, categorization is performed by a team of 2 researchers for each specification. Inter-rater agreement is determined by calculating Cohen’s Kappa. For this, from 5 randomly sampled specifications, 5 clone groups each are independently re-categorized by 2 researchers.

      For RQ 3, relative blow-up is computed as the ratio of the total number of words to the number of redundancy-free words. Absolute blow-up is computed as the difference of total and redundancy free number of words. The additional effort for reading is calculated using the data from [?], which gives an average reading speed of 220 words per minute. For the impact on inspections performed on the requirements specifications, we refer to Gilb and Graham [?] that suggest 1 hour per 600 words as inspection speed. This additional effort is calculated for each specification as well as the mean over all.

      To analyze the consequences of specification cloning on source code, we use a convenience sample of the study objects. We cannot employ a random sample, since for many study objects, the source code is unavailable or traceability between SRS and source code is too poor. Of the systems with sufficient traceability, we investigate the 5 longest and the 5 shortest clone groups as well as the 5 clone groups with the least and the 5 with the most instances. The requirements’ IDs in these clone groups are traced to the code and compared to clone detection results on the code level. Code clone detection is also performed using ConQAT.

      For RQ 4, precision is determined by measuring the percentage of the relevant clones in the inspected sample. Clone detection tailoring is performed by creating regular expressions that match the false positives. Specification fragments that match these expressions are then excluded from the analysis. To keep manual effort within feasible bounds, a maximum number of 20 randomly chosen clone groups is inspected in each tailoring step, if more than 20 clone groups are found for a specification. Else, false positives are removed manually and no further tailoring is performed.

      This section presents results ordered by research question.

      RQ 1 investigates the extent of cloning in real-world requirements specifications. The results are shown in columns 2–4 of Table Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. Clone coverage varies widely: from specifications Q and T, in which not a single clone of the required length is found, to specification H containing about two-thirds of duplicated content. 6 out of the 28 analyzed specifications (namely A, F, G, H, L, Y) have a clone coverage above 20%. The average specification clone coverage is 13.6%. Specifications A, D, F, G, H, K, L, V and Y even have more than one clone per page. No correlation between size of the specification and cloning is found. Pearson’s coefficient for clone coverage and number of words is -0.06 and thus confirms a lack of correlation.


      Spec
      Clone Clone clones blow-up blow-up
      cov. groups relative words
      A 35.0% 259 914 32.6% 10,191
      B 8.9% 265 639 5.3% 6,639
      C 18.5% 37 88 11.5% 1,907
      D 8.1% 105 479 6.9% 2,463
      E 0.9% 6 12 0.4% 161
      F 51.1% 50 162 60.6% 2,890
      G 22.1% 60 262 20.4% 1,704
      H 71.6% 71 360 129.6% 11,083
      I 5.5% 7 15 3.0% 201
      J 1.0% 1 2 0.5% 22
      K 18.1% 19 55 13.4% 699
      L 20.5% 303 794 14.1% 10,475
      M 1.2% 11 23 0.6% 287
      N 8.2% 159 373 5.0% 4,915
      O 1.9% 8 16 1.0% 182
      P 5.8% 5 10 3.0% 204
      Q 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0
      R 0.7% 2 4 0.4% 56
      S 1.6% 11 27 0.9% 228
      T 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0
      U 15.5% 85 237 10.8% 4,206
      V 11.2% 201 485 7.0% 6,204
      W 2.0% 14 31 1.1% 355
      X 12.4% 21 45 6.8% 1,253
      Y 21.9% 181 553 18.2% 7,593
      Z 19.6% 50 117 14.2% 1,718
      AB 12.1% 635 1818 8.7% 21,993
      AC 5.4% 65 148 3.2% 2,549
      Avg 13.6% 13.5%
      2,631 7,669 100,178

      Table \thetable: Study Results: Cloning

      Fig. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications? depicts the distribution of clone lengths in words (a) and of clone group cardinalities (b), i. e., the number of times a specification fragment has been cloned222The rightmost value in each diagram aggregates data that is outside its range. For space reasons, the distributions are given for the union of detected clones across specifications and not for each one individually. The general observations are, however, consistent across specifications.. Short clones are more frequent than long clones. Still, 90 clone groups have a length greater than 100 words. The longest detected group comprises two clones of 1049 words each, describing similar input dialogs for different types of data.

      Clone pairs are more frequent than clone groups of cardinality 3 or higher. However, 49 groups with cardinality above 10 were detected. The largest group encountered contains 42 clones. They contain domain knowledge about roles involved in contracts that has been duplicated 42 times.

      Figure \thefigure: Distribution of clone lengths and clone group cardinalities

      RQ 2 investigates which type of information is cloned in real-world requirements specifications. The categories of cloned information encountered in the study objects are:

      Detailed Use Case Steps:  Description of one or more steps in a use case that specifies in detail how a user interacts with the system, such as the steps required to create a new customer account in a system.

      Reference:  Fragment in a requirements specification that refers to another document or another part of the same document. Examples are references in a use case to other use cases or to the corresponding business process.

      UI:  Information that refers to the (graphical) user interface. The specification of which buttons are visible on which screen is an example for this category.

      Domain Knowledge:  Information about the application domain of the software. An example are details about what is part of an insurance contract for a software that manages insurance contracts.

      Interface Description:  Data and message definitions that describe the interface of a component, function, or system. An example is the definition of messages on a bus system that a component reads and writes.

      Pre-Condition:  A condition that has to hold before something else can happen. A common example are pre-conditions for the execution of a specific use case.

      Side-Condition:  Condition that describes the status that has to hold during the execution of something. An example is that a user has to remain logged in during the execution of a certain functionality.

      Configuration:  Explicit settings for configuring the described component or system. An example are timing parameters for configuring a transmission protocol.

      Feature:  Description of a piece of functionality of the system on a high level of abstraction.

      Technical Domain Knowledge:  Information about the used technology for the solution and the technical environment of the system, e. g, used bus systems in an embedded system.

      Post-Condition:  Condition that describes what has to hold after something has been finished. Analogous to the pre-conditions, post-conditions are usually part of use cases to describe the system state after the use case execution.

      Rationale:  Justification of a requirement. An example is the explicit demand by a certain user group.

      We document the distribution of clone groups to the categories for the sample of categorized clone groups. 404 clone groups are assigned 498 times (multiple assignments are possible). The quantitative results of the categorization are depicted in Fig. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. The highest number of assignments are to category “Detailed Use Case Steps” with 100 assignments. “Reference” (64) and “UI” (63) follow. The least number of assignments are to category “Rationale” (8).

      Figure \thefigure: Quantitative results for the categorization of cloned information

      The random sample for inter-rater agreement calculation consists of the specifications L, R, U, Z, and AB. From each specification, 5 random clones are inspected and categorized. As one specification only has 2 clone groups, in total 22 clone groups are inspected. We measure the inter-rater agreement using Cohen’s Kappa with a result of 0.67; this is commonly considered as substantial agreement. Hence, the categorization is good enough to ensure that independent raters categorize the cloned information similarly, which implies a certain degree of completeness and suitability.

      RQ 3 investigates the consequences of SRS cloning with respect to (1) specification reading, (2) specification modification and (3) specification implementation, i. e., activities that use SRS as an input.

      Specification Reading  Cloning in specifications obviously increases specification size and, hence, affects all activities that involve reading the specification documents. As Table Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications? shows, the average blow-up of the analyzed SRS is 3,578 words which, at typical reading speed of 220 words per minute [?], translates to additional 16 minutes spent on reading for each document. While this does not appear to be a lot, one needs to consider that quality assurance techniques like inspections usually assume a significantly lower processing rate. For example, [?] considers 600 words per hour as the maximum rate for effective inspections. Hence, the average additional time spent on inspections of the analyzed SRS is expected to be about 6 hours. In a typical inspection meeting with 3 participants, this amounts to 2.25 person days. For specification AB that has a blow-up of 21,993 words, the additional effort is expected to be greater than 13 person days if three inspectors are applied.


      S
      blow-up read. insp. S blow-up read. insp.
      [words] [m]333Additional reading effort in clock minutes. [h]444Additional inspection effort in clock hours. [words] [m]333Additional reading effort in clock minutes. [h]444Additional inspection effort in clock hours.
      A 10,191 46.3 17.0 O 182 0.8 0.3
      B 6,639 30.2 11.1 P 204 0.9 0.3
      C 1,907 8.7 3.2 Q 0 0.0 0.0
      D 2,463 11.2 4.1 R 56 0.3 0.1
      E 161 0.7 0.3 S 228 1.0 0.4
      F 2,890 13.1 4.8 T 0 0.0 0.0
      G 1,704 7.7 2.8 U 4,206 19.1 7.0
      H 11,083 50.4 18.5 V 6,204 28.2 10.3
      I 201 0.9 0.3 W 355 1.6 0.6
      J 22 0.1 0.0 X 1,253 5.7 2.1
      K 699 3.2 1.2 Y 7,593 34.5 12.7
      L 10,475 47.6 17.5 Z 1,718 7.8 2.9
      M 287 1.3 0.5 AB 21,993 100.0 36.7
      N 4,915 22.3 8.2 AC 2,549 11.6 4.2
      Avg 3,578 16.3 6.0


      Table \thetable: Study Results: Consequences

      Specification Modification  To explore the extent of inconsistencies in our specifications, we analyze the comments that were documented during the inspection of the sampled clones for each specification set. They refer to duplicated specification fragments that are essentially longer than the clones detected by the tool. The full length of the duplication is not found by the tool due to small differences between the clones that often result from inconsistent modification.

      An example for such a potential inconsistency can be found in the publicly available MOST specification (M). The function classes “Sequence Property” and “Sequence Method” have exactly the same parameter lists. They are detected as clones. The following description is also copied, but one ends with the sentence “Please note that in case of elements, parameter Flags is not available.”. In the other case, this sentence is missing. Whether these differences are really defects in the requirements or not could only be determined by consulting the requirements engineers of the system. This further step is out of scope of this paper.

      Specification Implementation  With respect to the entirety of the software development process, it is important to understand which consequences SRS cloning has on development activities that use SRS as an input, e. g, system implementation and test. For the inspected 20 specification clone groups and their corresponding source code, we found 3 different effects:

      1. The redundancy in the requirements is not reflected in the code. It contains shared abstractions that avoid duplication.

      2. The code that implements a cloned piece of an SRS is cloned, too. In this case, future changes to the cloned code cause additional efforts as modifications must be reflected in all clones. Furthermore, changes to cloned code are error-prone as inconsistencies may be introduced accidentally [?].

      3. Code of the same functionality has been implemented multiple times. The redundancy of the requirements thus does exist in the code as well but has not been created by copy&paste. This case exhibits similar problems as case Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications? but creates additional efforts for the repeated implementation. Moreover, this kind of redundancy is harder to detect as existing clone detection approaches cannot find code that is functionally similar but not the result of copy&paste [?].

      RQ 4 investigates whether redundancy in real-world requirements specifications can be detected with existing approaches.

      Result precision values and times required for clone detection tailoring are depicted in Table Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. Tailoring times do not include setup times and duration of the first detection run. If no clones are detected for a specification (i. e., Q and T), no precision value is given. While for some specifications no tailoring is necessary at all, e. g, E, F, G or, S, the worst precision value without tailoring is as low as 2% for specification O. In this case, hundreds of clones containing only the page footer cause the large amount of false positives. For 8 specifications (A, C, M, O, P, R, AB, and AC), precision values below 50% are measured before tailoring. The false positives contain information from the following categories:

      Document meta data  comprises information about the creation process of the document. This includes author information and document edit histories or meeting histories typically contained at the start or end of a document.

      Indexes  do not add new information and are typically generated automatically by text processors. Encountered examples comprise tables of content or subject indexes.

      Page decorations  are typically automatically inserted by text processors. Encountered examples include page headers and footers and page or line numbers.

      Open issues  document gaps in the specification. Encountered examples comprise “TODO” statements or tables with unresolved questions.

      Specification template information  contains section names common to all individual documents that are part of a specification.

      Some of the false positives, such as document headers or footers could possibly be avoided by accessing requirements information in a more direct form than done by text extraction from requirements specification documents.

      Precision was increased substantially by clone detection tailoring. Precision values for the specifications are above 85%, average precision is 99%. The time required for tailoring varies between 1 and 33 minutes across specifications. Low tailoring times occurred, when either no false positives were encountered, or they could very easily be removed, e. g, through exclusion of page footers by adding a single simple regular expression. On average, 10 minutes are required for tailoring.


      S
      Prec. Tail. Prec. S Prec. Tail. Prec.
      bef. min after bef. min after
      A 27% 30 100% O 2% 8 100%
      B 58% 15 100% P 48% 20 100%
      C 45% 25 100% Q n/a 1 n/a
      D 99% 5 99% R 40% 4 100%
      E 100% 2 100% S 100% 2 100%
      F 100% 4 100% T n/a 1 n/a
      G 100% 2 100% U 85% 5 85%
      H 97% 10 97% V 59% 6 100%
      I 71% 8 100% W 100% 6 100%
      J 100% 2 100% X 96% 13 100%
      K 96% 2 96% Y 97% 7 100%
      L 52% 26 100% Z 100% 1 100%
      M 44% 23 100% AB 30% 33 100%
      N 100% 4 100% AC 48% 14 100%


      Table \thetable: Study Results: Tailoring

      The results from the previous section imply that cloning in the sense of copy&paste is common in real-world requirements specifications. Here we interpret these results and discuss their implications.

      According to the results of RQ 1 the amount of cloning encountered is significant, although the extent differs between specifications. The large amount of detected cloning is further emphasized by the fact that our approach only locates identical parts of the text. Other forms of redundancy, such as specification fragments which have been copied but slightly reworded in later editing steps or which are completely reworded, although containing the same meaning, are not included in these numbers. The relatively broad spectrum of findings, however, illustrates that cloning in SRS can be successfully avoided. SRS E, for example, exhibits almost no cloning although it is of significant size.

      The results for RQ 2 illustrate that cloning is not confined to a specific kind of information. On the contrary, we found that duplication can, amongst others, be found in the description of use cases, the application domain and the user interface but also in parts of documents that merely reference other documents. Our case study only yields the absolute number of clones assigned to a category. As we do not investigate which amount of a SRS can be assigned to the category, we cannot deduce if cloning is more likely to occur in one category than another. Hence, we currently assume that clones are likely to occur in all parts of SRS.

      The most obvious effect of duplication is the increased size (c. f., RQ 3), which could often be avoided by cross references or different organization of the specifications. This affects all (manual) processing steps performed on the specifications, such as restructuring or translating them to other languages, and especially reading. Reading is emphasized here, as the ratio of persons reading to those writing a specification is usually large, even larger than in source code. The activities that involve reading include specification reviews, system implementation, system testing, and contract negotiations. All of them are typically performed by different persons, which are all affected by the blow up. While the additional effort for reading has been assumed to be linear in the presentation of the results, one could even argue that the effort might be larger, as human readers are not efficient with word-wise comparison. This is, however, required to check presumably duplicated parts to find potential subtle differences between them that could otherwise lead to errors in the final system.

      Furthermore, redundancy has effects on the quality of the specification, as it may lead to inconsistent changes of the clones, which my induce errors in the specification and thus often in the final system. Based on the inconsistencies we encountered, we strongly suspect that there is a real threat that inconsistent maintenance of duplicated SRS introduces errors in practice. However, since we did not validate that the inconsistencies are in fact errors, our results are not conclusive – future research on this topic is required. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies probably cause overhead during further system development due to clarification requests from developers spotting these inconsistencies.

      Moreover, our observations show that specification cloning can lead to cloned or, even worse, reimplemented parts of code. Often these duplications can not even be spotted by the developers, as they only work on a part of the system, whose sub-specification might not even contain clones when viewed in isolation.

      Redundancy is hard to identify in SRS as common quality assurance techniques like inspections often analyze the different parts of a specification individually and are, hence, prone to miss duplication. The results for RQ 4 show that existing clone detection approaches can be applied to identify cloned information in SRS in practice. However, it also shows that a certain amount of analysis tailoring is required to increase detection precision. As the effort required for the tailoring steps is below one person hour for each specification document in the case study, we do not consider this to be an obstacle for the application of clone detection as a means for the assessment of SRS quality in practice.

      In this section, we discuss threats to the validity of the study results and how we mitigated them.

      First of all, the results can be influenced by individual preferences or mistakes of the researchers that performed clone detection tailoring. We mitigated this risk by performing clone tailoring in pairs to reduce the probability of errors and achieve better objectivity.

      Precision was determined on random samples, instead of on all detected clone groups. While this can potentially introduce inaccuracy, sampling is commonly used to determine precision and it has been demonstrated that even small samples can yield precise estimates [?].

      The categorization of the cloned information is subjective to some degree. We mitigated this risk again by pairing the researchers as well as by analyzing the inter-rater agreement as discussed in Sec. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?. All researchers were in the same room during categorization. This way, newly added categories were immediately available to all researchers.

      The calculation of additional effort due to blow-up caused by cloning can be inaccurate if the used data from the literature does not fit to the efforts needed at a specific company. As the used values, however, have been confirmed in many studies, the results should be trustworthy.

      We know little about how reading speeds differ for cloned versus non-cloned text. On the one hand, one could expect that cloned text can be read more swiftly, since similar text has been read before. On the other hand, we noticed in many occasions that reading cloned text can actually be a lot more time consuming than reading non-cloned text, since the discovery and comprehension of subtle differences is often very tedious. Lacking precise data, we treated cloned and non-cloned text uniformly with respect to reading efforts. Further research could help to better quantify reading efforts for cloned code.

      While a lot of effort was invested into understanding detection precision, we know less about detection recall. Firstly, if regular expressions used during tailoring are too aggressive, detection recall can be reduced. We used pair-tailoring and comparison of results before and after tailoring to reduce this risk. Furthermore, we have not investigated false negatives, i. e., the amount of duplication contained in a specification and not identified by the automated detector. The reason for this is the difficulty of clearly defining the characteristics of such clones (having a semantic relation but little syntactic commonality) as well as the effort required to find them manually. The figures on detected clones are thus only a lower bound for redundancy. While the investigation of detection recall remains important future work, our limited knowledge about it does not affect the validity of the detected clones and the conclusions drawn from them.

      The practice of requirements engineering differs strongly between different domains, companies, and even projects. Hence, it is not clear whether the results of this study can be generalized to all existing instances of requirements specifications. However, we investigated 28 sets of requirements specifications from 11 organizations with over 1.2 million words and almost 9,000 pages. The specifications come from several different companies, from different domains – ranging from embedded systems to business information systems – and with various age and depth. Therefore, we are confident that the results are applicable to a wide variety of systems and domains.

      The detection of clones in the specifications, which is a prerequisite for our case study, has been performed using a slightly extended version of the ConQAT clone detector [?]555The tool “CloneDetective” from the title of  [?] is now part of ConQAT.. The necessary adaptations could be easily integrated, as the tool is designed as an extensible analysis platform. In this section we provide an overview on the clone detection algorithm used and especially focus on the differences to code clone detection.

      Figure \thefigure: The clone detection pipeline

      Typically, clone detection not only consists of the core algorithm, but rather of a sequence of processing steps organized in a pipeline fashion. This can be seen in Fig. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?, which depicts the (slightly simplified) tool configuration. In the case of ConQAT, it comes in the form of a dataflow graph. For the sake of discussion, we group the processing steps into input & pre-processing, detection, and post-processing & output, which are detailed below.

      The task of this phase is to read the documents and produce a normalized word stream that the core algorithm then searches for identical strings of words. Our algorithm works on plain text only, so the source documents, which include word processor and spread sheet documents, first have to be converted to plain text. This step is well supported by the authoring tools, but often some clean up of the resulting text is required, e. g, discarding non-printable control characters and normalizing line breaks. During the conversion some information is lost, such as formatting, or diagrams and graphics. As we focus on cloning in textual descriptions, this loss is not critical.

      After reading the text contents of a specification, certain sections of the documents are excluded. This tailoring process (c. f., Sec. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?) which is specific to the specification at hand is performed on a per document basis using regular expressions. The resulting text is then split into single words; whitespace and punctuation is discarded. To find clones despite minor changes, all stop words666Stop words are used in information retrieval and are defined as words which are insignificant or too frequent to be useful in search queries. Examples are “a”, “and”, or “how”. are removed from the word list and the words are normalized by stemming. Stemming heuristically reduces a word to its stem and we are using the Porter stemmer algorithm [?], which is available for various languages. Both the list of stop words and the stemming depend on the language of the specification.

      In the detection phase, all substrings in the word stream that are sufficiently long and occur at least twice are extracted. In code clone detection there is a large number of algorithms known for this problem [?]; many, however, operate on data structures not easily available for natural language texts, such as abstract syntax trees or even on data or control flow graphs. This leaves the so called token based approaches, which work on a sequence of tokens. The algorithm used in our tool works by constructing a suffix tree from the token (word) stream. Each branch of the tree which reaches at least two leaves corresponds to a clone and is reported. However, some care has to be taken to not report clones which are completely contained in another clone (more details can be found in [?]).

      During post-processing, all clone groups which contain overlapping clones are removed. Further filters could limit the results to clones within one document or, vice versa, clones that span multiple documents. This kind of filtering, however, was not used during this case study.

      Figure \thefigure: Screen-shot of the clone viewer application

      The output phase calculates several metrics on the clones found, including those reported earlier in this paper. For long-term use, output can be rendered as an HTML report, but more crucial here is the connection to the ConQAT clone viewer (c. f.,  [?] and Fig. Can Clone Detection Support Quality Assessments of Requirements Specifications?) to inspect the clones found in an efficient manner, which is a prerequisite for checking for false positives and assessing the results of the detection.

      A preliminary version of this work was published as a short paper in [?]. While this paper confirms the initial findings published there, it extends and strengthens them in many important aspects: specifications L to Z to AC have been added; the study thus now comprises more than twice as many requirements specifications, adding up to almost 9.000 instead of the previous 2.500 pages, spanning a broader range of domains, system types, and companies. Furthermore, a more elaborate study design is used in this paper: clone detection tailoring is applied to achieve better precision, which allowed lowering the minimal clone length from 50 to 20 words and thus a more accurate analysis; a comprehensive categorization of cloned specification fragments is given. Moreover, the consequences of specification cloning on software engineering activities have not been investigated in the short paper.

      Requirements quality assessment  Since accepted best practices in requirements engineering – like [?] – recommend absence of redundancy in requirements to ensure their modifiability, cloning is a quality aspect of requirements specifications. In general, structuring of requirements and manual inspection – e. g, based on the criteria of [?] – are used for quality assessment concerning redundancy. As it requires human action, it does introduce subjectiveness and causes high expenses. While approaches exist to mechanically analyze other quality attributes of natural language requirements specifications – especially ambiguity-related issues like weak phrases, lack of imperative, or readability metrics as in, e. g, , [?, ?, ?, ?] – redundancy has not been in the focus of analysis tools. Furthermore, many of them are limited to the English language. Structured representations of requirements allow the calculation of more specialized metrics [?]. These can, however, not be applied in the standard case of natural language documents.

      Commonalities detection  Algorithms for commonalities detection in documents have been developed in several other areas. Clustering algorithms for document retrieval, such as [?], search for documents about issues similar to those of a reference document. Plagiarism detection algorithms, like [?, ?], also address the detection of commonalities between documents. However, while these approaches search for commonalities between a specific document and a set of reference documents, we also consider clones within a single document. Still, it could be worthwhile to apply these approaches in the context of SRS clone detection.

      Clone detection  Numerous approaches to software clone detection have been proposed [?, ?]. They have been applied to source code [?, ?] and models [?]. Substantial investigation of the consequences of cloning has established its negative impact on maintenance activities [?, ?, ?]. However, to our best knowledge, our work is the first to apply clone detection approaches to requirements specifications.

      The IEEE standard 830-1998 requires requirements specifications to “Not be redundant”. Otherwise the modifiability of the document is considered poor. Redundancy in requirements specifications is hence a factor in assessing their quality. It has, however, not been clear to what extent this problem exists in real-world specifications, what consequences it has and if duplication can be detected with existing tools. We conducted a large-scale industrial case study to address these questions. Based on the results of our four research questions, we formulate the following recommendations for working with SRS in practice:

      • If nothing else is known about a requirements specification, one must assume that the probability that an arbitrary sentence in the specification is duplicated is greater than 10%. Cloning is not confined to a specific kind of information; all parts of an SRS are likely to be duplicated. Readers of specification documents should be aware of this and pay particular attention to subtle differences in duplicated text.

      • Due to size blow-up, cloning significantly increases the effort for activities that involve reading of SRS, e. g, inspections. Moreover, changes to duplicated information are costly and error-prone. Cloned SRS fragments might lead to clones in the code and/or repeated developments of the same functionality. To prevent negative consequences, one should make SRS authors and reviewers aware of these problems and avoid redundancy in SRS from the beginning on. Significant amounts of cloning in SRS – according to our personal opinion anything above 5% – should be viewed as a warning signal for potential future problems.

      • Existing clone detection approaches can be applied to detect cloning in SRS with little effort. However, a certain amount of effort must be spent on the tailoring of the clone detection tools to effectively reduce rates of false positives. Provided the necessary tailoring was carried out, we recommend to include clone detection as an integral part of SRS inspections.

      • Sometimes duplication is employed intentionally in order to make a part of a SRS self contained. In this case, make sure that the duplicated part is maintained only once (e. g, by using a macro mechanism in the text processor) and that readers can recognize the duplication as such.

      Coming back to the paper title, we found that automated clone detection can indeed support the quality assessment of requirements specifications as it is capable of identifying a well-recognized quality defect: redundancy.

      However, a number of important research questions still remain unanswered: how does redundancy in text documents affect reading speeds and inspection accuracy? How can different types of redundancy be eliminated from natural language texts? How can redundancy beyond copy&paste be detected in requirements specifications in a (semi-)automated fashion? Can part-of-speech analysis techniques compensate small differences between clones and thus increase detection recall? Apart from these research questions, our future work is mainly aimed towards a broadening of the scope to the whole software development life cycle. In particular, we want to investigate more thoroughly which consequences SRS cloning has on subsequent development activities.

      • [1] B. S. Baker. On finding duplication and near-duplication in large software systems. In WCRE’95. IEEE, 1995.
      • [2] S. Bellon, R. Koschke, G. Antoniol, J. Krinke, and E. Merlo. Comparison and evaluation of clone detection tools. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 33(9):577–591, 2007.
      • [3] B. Bernárdez, A. Durán, and M. Genero. Empirical evaluation and review of a metrics-based approach for use case verification. JRPIT, 36(4):247–258, 2004.
      • [4] B. Boehm and V. R. Basili. Software defect reduction top 10 list. Computer, 34(1):135–137, 2001.
      • [5] A. Bucchiarone, S. Gnesi, G. Lami, G. Trentanni, and A. Fantechi. QuARS Express - A Tool Demonstration. In ASE’08, 2008.
      • [6] M. J. Corbin and L. A. Strauss. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publ., 3. edition, 2008.
      • [7] F. Culwin and T. Lancaster. A review of electronic services for plagiarism detection in student submissions. In ITiCSE’00, 2000.
      • [8] F. Deissenboeck, B. Hummel, E. Juergens, B. Schaetz, S. Wagner, J.-F. Girard, and S. Teuchert. Clone detection in automotive model-based development. In ICSE’08, 2008.
      • [9] C. Domann, E. Juergens, and J. Streit. The curse of copy&paste – Cloning in requirements specifications. In ESEM’09, 2009.
      • [10] F. Fabbrini, M. Fusani, S. Gnesi, and G. Lami. An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements. In REFSQ’01, 2001.
      • [11] T. Gilb and D. Graham. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, 1993.
      • [12] R. L. Glass. Persistent software errors. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 7(2):162–168, 1981.
      • [13] J. D. Gould, L. Alfaro, R. Finn, B. Haupt, and A. Minuto. Why reading was slower from CRT displays than from paper. SIGCHI Bull., 17(SI):7–11, 1987.
      • [14] IEEE. Recommended practice for software requirements specifications. Standard 830-1998, IEEE, 1998.
      • [15] L. K. Ishrar Hussain, Olga Ormandjieva. Automatic quality assessment of SRS text by means of a decision-tree-based text classifier. In QSIC’07, 2007.
      • [16] E. Juergens, F. Deissenboeck, and B. Hummel. CloneDetective – A workbench for clone detection research. In ICSE’09, 2009.
      • [17] E. Juergens, F. Deissenboeck, and B. Hummel. Code similarities beyond copy & paste. In CSMR’10, 2010.
      • [18] E. Juergens, F. Deissenboeck, B. Hummel, and S. Wagner. Do code clones matter? In ICSE’09, 2009.
      • [19] R. Koschke. Identifying and removing software clones. In T. Mens and S. Demeyer, editors, Software Evolution. Springer, 2008.
      • [20] C. Lyon, R. Barrett, and J. Malcolm. A theoretical basis to the automated detection of copying between texts, and its practical implementation in the ferret plagiarism and collusion detector. In Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policies Conference, 2004.
      • [21] M. F. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14(3):130–137, 1980.
      • [22] C. K. Roy and J. R. Cordy. A survey on software clone detection research. Technical Report 2007-541, School of Computing Queen’s University, 2007.
      • [23] M. Weber and J. Weisbrod. Requirements engineering in automotive development – Experiences and challenges. In RE’02, 2002.
      • [24] J.-R. Wen, J.-Y. Nie, and H.-J. Zhang. Clustering user queries of a search engine. In WWW’01, 2001.
      • [25] W. M. Wilson, L. H. Rosenberg, and L. E. Hyatt. Automated analysis of requirement specifications. In ICSE’97, 1997.
      • [26] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, and M. Höst. Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Kluwer Academic, Boston, Mass., 2000.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
1742
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description