Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Emerging Results on Automated Support for Searching and Selecting Evidence for Systematic Literature Review Updates

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.05317 v1 pith:IFOMQUQE submitted 2024-02-07 cs.SE

Emerging Results on Automated Support for Searching and Selecting Evidence for Systematic Literature Review Updates

classification cs.SE
keywords updatesevidenceselectingresultssupportautomatedsearchsearching
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Context: The constant growth of primary evidence and Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) publications in the Software Engineering (SE) field leads to the need for SLR Updates. However, searching and selecting evidence for SLR updates demands significant effort from SE researchers. Objective: We present emerging results on an automated approach to support searching and selecting studies for SLR updates in SE. Method: We developed an automated tool prototype to perform the snowballing search technique and support selecting relevant studies for SLR updates using Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. We evaluated our automation proposition through a small-scale evaluation with a reliable dataset from an SLR replication and its update. Results: Effectively automating snowballing-based search strategies showed feasibility with minor losses, specifically related to papers without Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The ML algorithm giving the highest performance to select studies for SLR updates was Linear Support Vector Machine, with approximately 74% recall and 15% precision. Using such algorithms with conservative thresholds to minimize the risk of missing papers can significantly reduce evidence selection efforts. Conclusion: The preliminary results of our evaluation point in promising directions, indicating the potential of automating snowballing search efforts and of reducing the number of papers to be manually analyzed by about 2.5 times when selecting evidence for updating SLRs in SE.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.