IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v17y2025i9p387-d1734218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ensemble Learning for Software Requirement-Risk Assessment: A Comparative Study of Bagging and Boosting Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Chandan Kumar

    (School of Computing, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amaravati Campus, Agiripalli 522503, Andhra Pradesh, India)

  • Pathan Shaheen Khan

    (School of Computing, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amaravati Campus, Agiripalli 522503, Andhra Pradesh, India)

  • Medandrao Srinivas

    (Department of Data Science, NRI Institute of Technology, Agiripalli 521212, Andhra Pradesh, India)

  • Sudhanshu Kumar Jha

    (Department of Electronics and Communication, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj 211002, Uttar Pradesh, India)

  • Shiv Prakash

    (Department of Electronics and Communication, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj 211002, Uttar Pradesh, India)

  • Rajkumar Singh Rathore

    (Department of Computer Science, Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff Llandaff Campus, Cardiff CF5 2YB, UK)

Abstract

In software development, software requirement engineering (SRE) is an essential stage that guarantees requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, incomplete inconsistency, and ambiguity in requirement documents often occur, which can cause project delay, cost escalation, or total failure. In response to these challenges, this paper introduces a machine learning method to automatically identify the risk levels of software requirements according to ensemble classification methods. The labeled textual requirement dataset was preprocessed utilizing conventional preprocessing techniques, label encoding, and oversampling with the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) to handle class imbalance. Various ensemble and baseline models such as extra trees, random forest, bagging with decision trees, XGBoost, LightGBM, gradient boosting, decision trees, support vector machine, and multi-layer perceptron were trained and compared. Five-fold cross-validation was used to provide stable performance evaluation on accuracy, area under the ROC curve (AUC), F1-score, precision, recall, root mean square error (RMSE), and error rate. The bagging (DT) classifier achieved the best overall performance, with an accuracy of 99.55%, AUC of 0.9971 and an F1-score of 97.23%, while maintaining a low RMSE of 0.03 and error rate of 0.45%. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of ensemble-based classifiers, especially bagging (DT) classifiers, in accurately predicting high-risk software requirements. The proposed method enables early detection and mitigation of requirement risks, aiding project managers and software engineers in improving resource planning, reducing rework, and enhancing overall software quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Chandan Kumar & Pathan Shaheen Khan & Medandrao Srinivas & Sudhanshu Kumar Jha & Shiv Prakash & Rajkumar Singh Rathore, 2025. "Ensemble Learning for Software Requirement-Risk Assessment: A Comparative Study of Bagging and Boosting Approaches," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-23, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:387-:d:1734218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/9/387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/9/387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:387-:d:1734218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.