惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Vercel News
Vercel News
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
雷峰网
雷峰网
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
罗磊的独立博客
博客园 - 叶小钗
Jina AI
Jina AI
博客园 - 司徒正美
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
量子位
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
V
Visual Studio Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
The Cloudflare Blog
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
小众软件
小众软件
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享

cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

VLA Foundry: A Unified Framework for Training Vision-Language-Action Models Evaluating LLM-Generated Obfuscated XSS Payloads for Machine Learning-Based Detection Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges Refute-or-Promote: An Adversarial Stage-Gated Multi-Agent Review Methodology for High-Precision LLM-Assisted Defect Discovery From Particles to Perils: SVGD-Based Hazardous Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving Systems Testing Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph Human-Machine Co-Boosted Bug Report Identification with Mutualistic Neural Active Learning LLMSniffer: Detecting LLM-Generated Code via GraphCodeBERT and Supervised Contrastive Learning Neurosymbolic Repo-level Code Localization CodeMMR: Bridging Natural Language, Code, and Image for Unified Retrieval Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific Agents: Stronger Safety and Security Guarantees Without Sacrificing Utility Verification Modulo Tested Library Contracts The Semi-Executable Stack: Agentic Software Engineering and the Expanding Scope of SE Scaling Test-Time Compute for Agentic Coding AI-Assisted Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Evaluation Relative to Expert Judgment From Procedural Skills to Strategy Genes: Towards Experience-Driven Test-Time Evolution Atropos: Improving Cost-Benefit Trade-off of LLM-based Agents under Self-Consistency with Early Termination and Model Hotswap Vibe-Coding: Feedback-Based Automated Verification with no Human Code Inspection, a Feasibility Study Benchmarks for Trajectory Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis in OpenClaw and Codex: ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex Bounded Autonomy for Enterprise AI: Typed Action Contracts and Consumer-Side Execution AIPC: Agent-Based Automation for AI Model Deployment with Qualcomm AI Runtime Analyzing Chain of Thought (CoT) Approaches in Control Flow Code Deobfuscation Tasks Asking What Matters: Reward-Driven Clarification for Software Engineering Tasks Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environments LLMs taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with SAP HANA and LevelDB Large Language Models to Enhance Business Process Modeling: Past, Present, and Future Trends CollabCoder: Plan-Code Co-Evolution via Collaborative Decision-Making for Efficient Code Generation Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can zero-shot learning (ZSL) go? Learning from Change: Predictive Models for Incident Prevention in a Regulated IT Environment
Impacts of Bad ESP (Early Size Predictions) on Software E...
George Mathew, Tim Menzies, Jairus Hihn · 2016-12-10 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

Context: Early size predictions (ESP) can lead to errors in effort predictions for software projects. This problem is particular acute in parametric effort models that give extra weight to size factors (for example, the COCOMO model assumes that effort is exponentially proportional to project size). Objective: To test if effort estimates are crippled by bad ESP. Method: Document inaccuracies in early size estimates. Use those error sizes to determine the implications of those inaccuracies via a Monte Carlo perturbation analysis of effort models and an analysis of the equations used in those effort models. Results: While many projects have errors in ESP of up to +/- 100%, those errors add very little to the overall effort estimate error. Specifically, we find no statistically significant difference in the estimation errors seen after increasing ESP errors from 0 to +/- 100%. An analysis of effort estimation models explains why this is so: the net additional impact of ESP error is relatively small compared to the other sources of error associated with in estimation models. Conclusion: ESP errors effect effort estimates by a relatively minor amount. As soon as a model uses a size estimate and other factors to predict project effort, then ESP errors are not crippling to the process of estimation