Cited by 1Model-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesSoftware Engineering ResearchBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis

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 access
Leblebici, Onur, Tuglular, Tugkan, Belli, Fevzi·2023·IEEE Access

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2023.3323591

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

  1. Völter, 2013, Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management
  2. Forward, Perceptions of software modeling: A survey of software practitioners
  3. Lo, 2007, Software specification discovery: A new data mining approach
  4. Thayer, 1997, Software Requirements Engineerings
  5. Myhill, 1957, Finite automata and the representation of events, 57, 112
  6. Ozturk, 2020, A model-based test generation approach for agile software product lines
  7. LeCun, 1995, Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series, 3361
  8. Hamilton, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, 30, 1
  9. Zhang, Link prediction based on graph neural networks, 31, 1
  10. Shilpa, 2020, A review on cardiovascular disease detection using machine learning algorithms, Solid State Technol., 63, 8754
  11. Leblebici, 2023, Python Listing Flatten Graph in Application of GNN on Software Modeling
  12. Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG—An Implementation of Seal for Event Sequence Graph Link Prediction Tasks
  13. Leblebici, 2023, Arguments of the Seal-ESG Framework
  14. Leblebici, 2023, Deeplinker-ESG—An Implementation of Deeplinker for Event Sequence Graph Link Prediction Tasks
  15. Leblebici, 2023, Parameters of the Deeplinker
  16. 2023, Conda Environments
  17. Leblebici, 2023, Computer Hardware Specifications
  18. Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG Parameters on Each Iteration
  19. Leblebici, 2023, Deeplinker-ESG Parameters on Each Iteration
  20. Brownlee, 2023, How to Avoid Exploding Gradients With Gradient Clipping
  21. Leblebici, 2023, Seal-ESG Dataset Results
  22. 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
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