Extracting and Minimizing Relations for Enhanced Coverage of User ‎Stories

  • Authors

    • Amol Sharma Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology ‎‎ (BHU), Varanasi 221005, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA and Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Meerut Institute of Technology, ‎ Meerut 250103, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA
    • Anil Kumar Tripathi Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology ‎‎ (BHU), Varanasi 221005, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA
    https://doi.org/10.14419/2fxxam53

    Received date: October 27, 2025

    Accepted date: December 7, 2025

    Published date: December 12, 2025

  • Conceptual Model; Relation Extraction; Relation Minimization; NLP; OpenIE

  • Abstract

    User stories are the first choice of practitioners for expressing requirements in agile projects. ‎Semi-structured natural language (NL) user stories, though easy to read and write, cannot ‎accurately represent a problem domain holistically. The conceptual model, constituting ‎relations (e.g., Teacher teaches Students) among key concepts in a domain, comes in handy to ‎serve the purpose. Several NLP-based approaches exist that extract these relations ‎automatically from user stories for conceptual modeling. These approaches do not make ‎optimum use of NLP capabilities, and consequently, inefficiency and incompleteness in the ‎extracted models are observable. To deal with these issues, we propose an approach for ‎relation extraction using the Open Information Extraction (OpenIE) NLP technique. The ‎OpenIE facilitates our process by automatically extracting relation triples (subject, relation, ‎object). The primary extraction results in a multitude of relations that we reduce into a ‎minimal set by applying a two-step reduction process. The minimal set of relations helps us ‎achieve efficiency as we plate up necessary minimum relations for further processing in ‎software development. The expanded coverage of the input user story by the minimal relation ‎set indicates a high degree of completeness, as our minimal set of relations represents most of ‎the domain knowledge hemmed in by the user story. We devise two metrics, Relation Set ‎Reduction (RSR) and Relation Set Coverage (RSC), to evaluate our approach. The evaluation ‎of two extensive user story datasets shows promising results as we are able to achieve a ‎‎65.91% reduction (RSR) in relations, with 86.45% coverage (RSC) of the user stories‎.

  • References

    1. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., &Labiche, Y. (2011). A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models. Re-quirements Engineering, 16(2), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-010-0111-y.
    2. Li, Y., Schulze, S., Scherrebeck, H. H., &Fogdal, T. S. (2020). Automated Extraction of Domain Knowledge in Practice: The Case of Feature Extrac-tion from Requirements at Danfoss. Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Systems and Software Product Line: Volume A - Volume A. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382025.3414968.
    3. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006.
    4. Cohn, M. (2004). User Stories Applied: for Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley.
    5. Kassab, M. (2014). An Empirical Study on the Requirements Engineering Practices for Agile Software Development. 2014 40th EUROMICRO Confer-ence on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2014.77.
    6. Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., Werf, J. M., &Brinkkemper, S. (2016). The Use and Effectiveness of User Stories in Practice. Proceedings of the 22nd In-ternational Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality - Volume 9619, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_14.
    7. Müter Laurens and Deoskar, T. and M. M. and B. S. and D. F. (2019). Refinement of User Stories into Backlog Items: Linguistic Structure and Action Verbs. In M. Knauss Eric. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15538-4_7.
    8. and Goedicke (Ed.), Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 109–116). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15538-4_7.
    9. Berends, J., & Dalpiaz, F. (2021). Refining User Stories via Example Mapping: An Empirical Investigation. 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE51729.2021.00038.
    10. Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., & Wimmer, M. (2012). Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02546-4.
    11. Ibrahim, M., & Ahmad, R. (2010). Class Diagram Extraction from Textual Requirements Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) Techniques. 2010 Second International Conference on Computer Research and Development, 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCRD.2010.71.
    12. Lucassen, G., Robeer, M., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J. M. E. M., &Brinkkemper, S. (2017). Extracting conceptual models from user stories with Visual Narrator. Requirements Engineering, 22(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0270-1.
    13. Elallaoui, M., Nafil, K., &Touahni, R. (2015). Automatic generation of UML sequence diagrams from user stories in Scrum process. 2015 10th Inter-national Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, SITA 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/SITA.2015.7358415.
    14. Elallaoui, M., Nafil, K., &Touahni, R. (2018). Automatic Transformation of User Stories into UML Use Case Diagrams using NLP Techniques. Proce-dia Computer Science, 130, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.010.
    15. Gupta, A., Poels, G., &Bera, P. (2019). Creation of multiple conceptual models from user stories – a natural language processing approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11787 LNCS, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34146-6_5.
    16. Gunes, T., &Aydemir, F. B. (2020). Automated Goal Model Extraction from User Stories Using NLP. Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer-ence on Requirements Engineering, 2020-Augus, 382–387. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE48521.2020.00052.
    17. Gunes, T., Oz, C. A., &Aydemir, F. B. (2021). ArTu: A Tool for Generating Goal Models from User Stories. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 436–437. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE51729.2021.00058.
    18. Nasiri, S., Rhazali, Y., Lahmer, M., &Chenfour, N. (2020). Towards a Generation of Class Diagram from User Stories in Agile Methods. Procedia Computer Science, 170, 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.148.
    19. Javed, M., & Lin, Y. (2021). iMER: Iterative process of entity relationship and business process model extraction from the requirements. Information and Software Technology, 135, 106558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106558.
    20. Nasiri, S., Adadi, A., &Lahmer, M. (2023). Automatic generation of business process models from user stories. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), 13(1), 809. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v13i1.pp809-822.
    21. Bragilovski, M., Dalpiaz, F., & Sturm, A. (2022). Guided Derivation of Conceptual Models from User Stories: A Controlled Experiment. Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 28th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2022, Birmingham, UK, March 21–24, 2022, Pro-ceedings, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98464-9_11.
    22. Raharjana, I. K., Siahaan, D., &Fatichah, C. (2021). User Stories and Natural Language Processing: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access, 9, 53811–53826. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3070606.
    23. Yue, T., Briand, L. C., &Labiche, Y. (2015). AToucan: An Automated Framework to Derive UML Analysis Models from Use Case Models. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.,24(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/2699697.
    24. J. Becker, M. Rosemann, C. Von Uthmann, Guidelines of business process modeling, in: Business process management, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3.
    25. Neill CJ, Laplante PA (2003) Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Softw 20(6):40. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2003.1241365.
    26. Stanford Open Information Extraction. (n.d.). Retrieved September 16, 2023, from https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/openie.html
    27. Angeli, G., Johnson Premkumar, M. J., & Manning, C. D. (2015). Leveraging Linguistic Structure for Open Domain Information Extraction. Proceed-ings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P15-1034.
    28. Natural Logic. (n.d.). Retrieved September 16, 2023, from https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/natlog.html
    29. Full List of Annotators. (n.d.). Retrieved September 16, 2023, from https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/annotators.html
    30. Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J. M. E. M., &Brinkkemper, S. (2016). Improving agile requirements: the Quality User Story framework and tool. Requirements Engineering, 21(3), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0250-x.
    31. Wautelet Yves and Heng, S. and K. M. and M. I. (2014). Unifying and Extending User Story Models. In J. and Q. C. and R. C. and M. Y. and M. H. and H. J. Jarke Matthias and Mylopoulos (Ed.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 211–225). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_15.
    32. Kose, S. G., & Aydemir, F. B. (2023). A User Story Dataset for Library and Restaurant Management Systems. Zenodo.
    33. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., & Zimmer, F. (2016). Extracting domain models from natural-language requirements: Approach and industrial evaluation. Proceedings - 19th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2016, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1145/2976767.2976769.
    34. Robeer, M., Lucassen, G., van der Werf, J. M. E. M., Dalpiaz, F., & Brinkkemper, S. (2016). Automated Extraction of Conceptual Models from User Stories via NLP. Proceedings - 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2016, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2016.40.
    35. Liu, L., Li, T., & Kou, X. (2014). Eliciting Relations from Natural Language Requirements Documents Based on Linguistic and Statistical Analysis. 2014 IEEE 38th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2014.27.
    36. Berry Daniel and Gacitua, R. and S. P. and T. S. F. (2012). The Case for Dumb Requirements Engineering Tools. In D. Regnell Björn and Damian (Ed.), Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 211–217). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28714-5_18.
    37. Slankas, J., Xiao, X., Williams, L., & Xie, T. (2014). Relation extraction for inferring access control rules from natural language artifacts. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1145/2664243.2664280.
    38. Vidya Sagar, V. B. R., & Abirami, S. (2014). Conceptual modeling of natural language functional requirements. Journal of Systems and Software, 88(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.08.036.
    39. Rehman Khan, S. U., Lee, S. P., Parizi, R. M., & Elahi, M. (2014). A code coverage-based test suite reduction and prioritization framework. 2014 4th World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT 2014), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/WICT.2014.7076910.
    40. Yoo, S., & Harman, M. (2012). Regression Testing Minimization, Selection and Prioritization: A Survey. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab., 22(2), 67–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/stv.430.
    41. ur Rehman Khan, S., ur Rehman, I., & Malik, S. U. R. (2009). The impact of test case reduction and prioritization on software testing effectiveness. 2009 International Conference on Emerging Technologies, 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET.2009.5353136.
    42. Khan, S.-R., Nadeem, A., & Awais, A. (2006). TestFilter: A Statement-Coverage Based Test Case Reduction Technique. 2006 IEEE International Mul-titopic Conference, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1109/INMIC.2006.358177.
    43. Hao, D., Zhang, L., Wu, X., Mei, H., & Rothermel, G. (2012). On-demand test suite reduction. 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engi-neering (ICSE), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227144.
    44. Harrold, M. J., Gupta, R., & Soffa, M. lou. (1993). A Methodology for Controlling the Size of a Test Suite. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 2(3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1145/152388.152391.
    45. Apache POI. (n.d.). Retrieved August 7, 2023, from https://poi.apache.org/index.html.
    46. Wadden D., Wennberg U., Luan Y., and Hajishirzi H. (2019). Entity, Relation, and Event Extraction with Contextualized Span Representations. Pro-ceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Lan-guage Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, and X. Wan, Eds., Hong Kong, China: Association for Computational Linguistics. 5784–5789. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1585.
    47. Wang Y., Yu B., Zhang Y., Liu T., Zhu H., and Sun L. (2020). TPLinker: Single-stage Joint Extraction of Entities and Relations Through Token Pair Linking. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1572–1582. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.138.
    48. Zhao X. et al. (2024). A Comprehensive Survey on Relation Extraction: Recent Advances and New Frontiers. ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3674501.
    49. Zhou S. et al. (2022). A Survey on Neural Open Information Extraction: Current Status and Future Directions. 5660–5667. https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2022/0793.pdf.
    50. L. Pai et al. (2024). A Survey on Open Information Extraction from Rule-based Model to Large Language Model. Findings of the Association for Com-putational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, Y. Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y.-N. Chen, Eds., Miami, Florida, USA: Association for Computational Linguis-tics. 9586–9608. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.560.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Sharma, A., & Kumar Tripathi, A. (2025). Extracting and Minimizing Relations for Enhanced Coverage of User ‎Stories. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(8), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.14419/2fxxam53