Measures to report the Location Problem of Model Fragment Location

Model Fragment Location (MFL) aims at identifying model elements that are relevant to a requirement, feature, or bug. Many MFL approaches have been introduced in the last few years to address the identification of the model elements that correspond to a specific functionality. However, there is a lack of detail when the measurements about the search space (models) and the measurements about the solution to be found (model fragment) are reported. Generally, the only reported measure is the model size. In this paper, we propose using five measurements (size, volume, density, multiplicity, and dispersion) to report the location problems. These measurements are the result of analyzing 1,308 MFLs in a family of industrial models over the last four years. Using two MFL approaches, we emphasize the importance of these measurements in order to compare results. Our work not only proposes improving the reporting of the location problem, but it also provides real measurements of location problems that are useful to other researchers in the design of synthetic location problems.

[1]  Oscar Pastor,et al.  Towards Feature Location in Models through a Learning to Rank Approach , 2017, SPLC.

[2]  Sandro Schulze,et al.  Interface variability in family model mining , 2013, SPLC '13 Workshops.

[3]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  A Hitchhiker's guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineering , 2014, Softw. Test. Verification Reliab..

[4]  Uwe Zdun,et al.  A systematic literature review of traceability approaches between software architecture and source code , 2014, EASE '14.

[5]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  CVL: common variability language , 2012, SPLC '12.

[6]  Oscar Pastor,et al.  Model Fragment Reuse Driven by Requirements , 2017, CAiSE-Forum-DC.

[7]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: Experimental analysis of power , 2010, Inf. Sci..

[8]  Marsha Chechik,et al.  A Survey of Feature Location Techniques , 2013, Domain Engineering, Product Lines, Languages, and Conceptual Models.

[9]  Birger Møller-Pedersen,et al.  Augmenting Product Lines , 2012, 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[10]  Jaime Font,et al.  Feature Location Through the Combination of Run-Time Architecture Models and Information Retrieval , 2016, SAM.

[11]  Jens von Pilgrim,et al.  A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development , 2010, Software & Systems Modeling.

[12]  Andrea Zisman,et al.  Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations , 2004, J. Syst. Softw..

[13]  Birger Møller-Pedersen,et al.  Model Comparison to Synthesize a Model-Driven Software Product Line , 2011, 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference.

[14]  Genny Tortora,et al.  Enhancing an artefact management system with traceability recovery features , 2004, 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2004. Proceedings..

[15]  K. Koffka Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[16]  Jacques Klein,et al.  Bottom-up adoption of software product lines: a generic and extensible approach , 2015, SPLC.

[17]  Jaime Font,et al.  Feature Location in Model-Based Software Product Lines Through a Genetic Algorithm , 2016, ICSR.

[18]  Bogdan Dit,et al.  Feature location in source code: a taxonomy and survey , 2013, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

[19]  Jaime Font,et al.  Achieving Feature Location in Families of Models Through the Use of Search-Based Software Engineering , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Jaime Font,et al.  On the Influence of Models at Run-Time Traces in Dynamic Feature Location , 2017, ECMFA.

[21]  Rui Abreu,et al.  A Survey on Software Fault Localization , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[22]  Jacques Klein,et al.  Automating the Extraction of Model-Based Software Product Lines from Model Variants (T) , 2015, 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE).

[23]  Birgit Vogel-Heuser,et al.  Family model mining for function block diagrams in automation software , 2014, SPLC '14.

[24]  Harald Störrle,et al.  On the Impact of Layout Quality to Understanding UML Diagrams: Size Matters , 2014, MoDELS.