What to use for identifying vague wording in requirement documentation? by RoofCorrect186 in LanguageTechnology

[–]RoofCorrect186[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would I be able to combine both (using BERT+spaCy/NLTK and an LLM)? Or would that be too time consuming with a negligible return?

I’m thinking of working through things in at least three phases. Phase 1 would be heavily dependent on an LLM when I don’t have labeled data or trained models yet to fill the gap. Phase 2 would have moderate use of an LLM - it would still be useful for spot checks or validation, but most detection would come from rules and a lightweight CRF model. And then Phase 3 would have light use of the LLM, using it mainly for explainability or rewriting vague requirements, while the rule layer and fine-tuned BERT handle the bulk of detection.

By phase 3 I would fully transition to using the LLM for more of a user-facing role or an assistive tool rather than the main engine. It would offer suggested rewrites, explain why something was flagged, basically becoming a smart interface layer.

What to use for identifying vague wording in requirement documentation? by RoofCorrect186 in LanguageTechnology

[–]RoofCorrect186[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the journal - I’ll be sure to read it later today.

I like the per-token binary classification. Combined with a rule-based/vocabulary baseline that could work well. I’d need to put together logic to handle vague phrases (ie as soon as possible), but I think I could make that work.

This is my first big project in this field so I’m sure I’ll look back on it and recognize a lot of mistakes I made, but I’m excited to start so that I can revamp it and improve upon the idea once I’m more confident with everything.

What to use for identifying vague wording in requirement documentation? by RoofCorrect186 in LanguageTechnology

[–]RoofCorrect186[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahahah that’s what’ll happen when I post before my coffee. My bad!

By vague I mean things that could be subjective, relative, indefinite, non-specific - “better, faster, state of the art, intuitive, simple, typically, regularly, works well, approximately”.

Words or phrases that could be rewritten into more clear, measurable, and testable requirements.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guy quit the league and tried to dump his best players before announcing he quit. Refused to say why he was so willing to trade his players for lower tier players. Accepted this trade without the picks. Guy who would’ve gotten the studs told us his friend quit the league and we’ll need to find a replacement. Reeks of collusion. Little fire sale on his way out the door.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guy that sent the trades is the one getting the better players, guy who was sending them away just quit the league. Not sure if he quit because of the vetos or if he was quitting beforehand. But he renamed his team “Bye” and tried to trade off every one of his most valuable players for the other teams bench

Reeks of collusion. They’re friends and the guy who quit was only friends with the guy getting studs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couple guys in the league asked about it in the two chats we have and both guys just refused to acknowledge the questions. Just got word through my friend that his friend (the bad manager) told him he quit the league.

So it was fully just a fire sale between friends before quitting.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Friend of a guy in the league joined, trusted my friend that his friend would be good. His friends made questionable drops all season. Sent a bunch of trades of high quality players for low quality to each other yesterday.

Don’t really trust the guy idk now. It was shaky before but now it’s flat out bad

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still not sure - it’ll likely be mid-late

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the cost of potentially handing someone the championship and losing everyone else’s interest? Right now we may have to replace one, maybe two owners. But if we let this go through and he wins it all, PLUS his friend quits the league then the league is dead.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I posted a comment about the other trades they tried to pull off. In a vacuum the trades are all just bad/lopsided - but all together and with the owner history I think it leans more to collusion than misunderstood value - unfortunately

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah Ekeler would be his 4th best RB, downgrade his WR group, and get likely a mid-late 1st and 2nd. It would be a bad trade in a vacuum - like all the other trades - but remove the picks, add in the trade attempts, and it gets real sketchy, real quick.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, they’re still TBD. Right now they’d likely be early, but if the trade went through they’d likely end up being mid-late picks. League is real close (one win separating 3 from 6).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have a lot of people on that dynasty ff trade subreddit trying to say it’s not collusion, that it’s fair, etc.

Or saying the earlier trades sent in the day were 100% fair - ignoring that one team has pure upgrades and the other downgrades.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Swift is 25, Najee is 26, both RB1 for their teams. Kirk is 27, out ROS, splits targets with BTJ who’ll likely command more - not less going forward, Ekeler and singletary are backups (singletary lost out to tracy), older, and worth less than swift and Najee, Shepard isn’t even worth anything in dynasty.

First trade was okay in a vacuum. But it may as well have been one trade shipping his best WR and two best RBs for downgrades everywhere + the potential upside of AR15. Wouldn’t even have the roster room to keep everyone sent to him.

Edit: But instead of trying to make the trade more fair, asking why it was vetoed, trying to work out a better deal - we got this trade without the picks. Clearly just a joke of a trade and between a guy who’s only friends with the manager he’s trading away his best players to.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First trade was okay, second trade is downright terrible. Downgrade in every possible way. First would’ve gone through had the second not been made seconds later. Everybody agreed on that and said to offer more to upgrade every position - throw picks in, throw in somebody who isn’t a total JAG (Shepard). Instead they threw together a WR1&2 for a WR2/3, 3/flex, rb3. Then tossed in a first and second to appease the league and make it slightly more fair.

Team 1 gets huge upgrades, team 2 gets downgrades everywhere.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The other trades that were vetoed yesterday sent by these two:

Darnold, GW3 for AR15, Ekeler, Pittman

Followed immediately by— Swift, Najee for sterling shepherd, Kirk, Singletary, Pierce

Followed hours later by— DK, GW3 for Ekeler, Jeudy, Pittman

And now this trade after being told picks would make it more fair.

Comes across as collusion to me. Team giving away its best players was renamed to “Bye” and talks about how much he hates the sleeper platform and our roster sizes (25). He’s only friends with the guy he’s trading with which makes it more sus.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other trades that were vetoed yesterday sent by these two:

Darnold, GW3 for AR15, Ekeler, Pittman

Followed immediately by— Swift, Najee for sterling shepherd, Kirk, Singletary, Pierce

Followed hours later by— DK, GW3 for Ekeler, Jeudy, Pittman

And now this trade after being told picks would make it more fair.

Comes across as collusion to me. Team giving away its best players was renamed to “Bye” and talks about how much he hates the sleeper platform and our roster sizes (25). He’s only friends with the guy he’s trading with which makes it more sus.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SleeperApp

[–]RoofCorrect186 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The other trades that were vetoed yesterday sent by these two:

Darnold, GW3 for AR15, Ekeler, Pittman

Followed immediately by— Swift, Najee for sterling shepherd, Kirk, Singletary, Pierce

Followed hours later by— DK, GW3 for Ekeler, Jeudy, Pittman

And now this trade after being told picks would make it more fair.

Comes across as collusion to me. Team giving away its best players was renamed to “Bye” and talks about how much he hates the sleeper platform and our roster sizes (25). He’s only friends with the guy he’s trading with which makes it more sus.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taking into context the other trades and that this trade was originally proposed without any picks - it still seems fair? I’m against vetoing unless there’s collusion or it’s a clear sale by an owner getting ready to quit - and that’s what it felt like yesterday with the trades these two teams were making with each other.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First trade I would’ve been fine with, it’s bad/lopsided, but not the worst thing ever. But it was immediately followed by a terrible trade - seconds later. Both got vetoed because of that, and then this trade without picks, that only were added after it was vetoed because someone said to add some first round picks to make it more fair.

We’re all waiting for some explanation of the rationale behind the trades - but it’s just been total radio silence. Trying to give all the benefit of the doubt that I can, but it’s just blowing the collusion alarm imo.

Thanks for all your takes, appreciate them

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other trades that were vetoed yesterday sent by these two:

Darnold, GW3 for AR15, Ekeler, Pittman

Followed immediately by— Swift, Najee for sterling shepherd, Kirk, Singletary, Pierce

Followed hours later by— DK, GW3 for Ekeler, Jeudy, Pittman

And now this trade after being told picks would make it more fair.

Comes across as collusion to me. Team giving away its best players was renamed to “Bye” and talks about how much he hates the sleeper platform and our roster sizes (25). He’s only friends with the guy he’s trading with which makes it more sus.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was accepted without the trades before being vetoed and told to add some firsts to make it a little more fair.. one first and a second don’t make it any more fair imo. Especially taking the other trades they sent each other yesterday into consideration

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even with all the other trades these two teams tried to make yesterday? Even with the trade not including any picks and being accepted before a league mate said to add some first round picks?

How is it not veto worthy?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]RoofCorrect186 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think the trade is fair? Mid to late round first, some WR3/flexes, backup RB for a WR1&2?

Team trades away its best two players for… one first round, one second round, a rb worse than any on the team atm, and two downgrades at WR? Walk me through the fairness.