The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Link Prediction for Completing Graphical Software Models Using Neural Networks
Open accessAbstract
Deficiencies and inconsistencies introduced during the modeling of software systems may result in high costs and negatively impact the quality of all developments performed using these models. Therefore, developing more accurate models will aid software architects in developing software systems that match and exceed expectations. This paper proposes a graph neural network (GNN) method for predicting missing connections, or links, in graphical models, which are widely employed in modeling software systems. The proposed method utilizes graphs as allegedly incomplete, primitive graphical models of the system under consideration (SUC) as input and proposes links between its elements through the following steps: (i) transform the models into graph-structured data and extract features from the nodes, (ii) train the GNN model, and (iii) evaluate the performance of the trained model. Two GNN models based on SEAL and DeepLinker are evaluated using three performance metrics, namely cross-entropy loss, area under curve, and accuracy. Event sequence graphs (ESGs) are used as an example of applying the approach to an event-based behavioral modeling technique. Examining the results of experiments conducted on various datasets and variations of GNN reveals that missing connections between events in an ESG can be predicted even with relatively small datasets generated from ESG models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Experimental results reported by Leblebici et al. [34] show that SEAL-ESG significantly outperformed DeepLinker-ESG across all tested datasets, achieving an accuracy of 0.90, an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.96, and a low cross-entropy loss of approximately 0.31 in predicting missing links in software models.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Völter, 2013, Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management
- Forward, Perceptions of software modeling: A survey of software practitioners
- Lo, 2007, Software specification discovery: A new data mining approach
- Thayer, 1997, Software Requirements Engineerings
- Myhill, 1957, Finite automata and the representation of events, 57, 112
- Ozturk, 2020, A model-based test generation approach for agile software product lines
- LeCun, 1995, Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series, 3361
- Hamilton, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, 30, 1
- Zhang, Link prediction based on graph neural networks, 31, 1
- Shilpa, 2020, A review on cardiovascular disease detection using machine learning algorithms, Solid State Technol., 63, 8754
- Leblebici, 2023, Python Listing Flatten Graph in Application of GNN on Software Modeling
- Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG—An Implementation of Seal for Event Sequence Graph Link Prediction Tasks
- Leblebici, 2023, Arguments of the Seal-ESG Framework
- Leblebici, 2023, Deeplinker-ESG—An Implementation of Deeplinker for Event Sequence Graph Link Prediction Tasks
- Leblebici, 2023, Parameters of the Deeplinker
- 2023, Conda Environments
- Leblebici, 2023, Computer Hardware Specifications
- Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG Parameters on Each Iteration
- Leblebici, 2023, Deeplinker-ESG Parameters on Each Iteration
- Brownlee, 2023, How to Avoid Exploding Gradients With Gradient Clipping
- Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG Dataset Results
- Leblebici, 2023, Deeplinker-ESG Dataset Results
Metadata
- Authors
- Leblebici, O., Tuglular, T., & Belli, F.
- Affiliations
- Izmir Institute of Technology (TR)
- Department of Computer Engineering, İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 115934-115950
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387475949
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- IYTE GCRIS Database (Izmir Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Model-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Business Process Modeling and Analysis
- Keywords
- link prediction, graph neural networks, incomplete models, seals, software architecture modeling, model completion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review