Are MAs profitable to search-based PLA design?

The architectural properties of product-line architecture (PLA) design have been successfully optimised by multi-objective genetic algorithms (GAs). Memetic algorithms (MAs) extend GA by adding a local search after the global search process. MA outperformed GA in the context of class modelling, software testing and the next release problem. However, no studies on the application of MAs for PLA design optimisation were found in the literature. In light of this, the authors performed an exploratory study, where MA was used to apply design patterns for a search-based PLA design (SBPD) and achieved promising results. From the obtained results, they adjusted the MA-based implementation. This study aims at investigating if the MA is more profitable to SBPD than GAs. Two empirical studies that involve four PLA designs were carried out for this task by varying the pair of objective functions. Empirical results show that MA achieved satisfactory solutions, despite being influenced by the original PLA design.

[1]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  Multi-objective reverse engineering of variability-safe feature models based on code dependencies of system variants , 2017, Empirical Software Engineering.

[2]  S. Schmidt.  Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences , 2009 .

[3]  A. Ehrenberg,et al.  The Design of Replicated Studies , 1993 .

[4]  Outi Räihä,et al.  A survey on search-based software design , 2010, Comput. Sci. Rev..

[5]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  Reengineering legacy applications into software product lines: a systematic mapping , 2017, Empirical Software Engineering.

[6]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[7]  S. Balamurugan,et al.  Critical components testing using hybrid genetic algorithm , 2013, SOEN.

[8]  David W. Corne,et al.  Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Anthony Ventresque,et al.  Is seeding a good strategy in multi-objective feature selection when feature models evolve? , 2017, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[10]  Mark Harman,et al.  A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Search-Based Testing: Local, Global, and Hybrid Search , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

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

[12]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[13]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Solving the Class Responsibility Assignment Problem in Object-Oriented Analysis with Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[14]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[15]  Ian C. Parmee,et al.  Interactive, Evolutionary Search in Upstream Object-Oriented Class Design , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[16]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines , 2015, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[17]  Gordon Fraser,et al.  A Memetic Algorithm for whole test suite generation , 2015, J. Syst. Softw..

[18]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  The role of replications in Empirical Software Engineering , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[19]  Ajay Rana,et al.  A novel strategy for automatic test data generation using soft computing technique , 2014, Frontiers of Computer Science.

[20]  Miroslaw Staron,et al.  Assessing the impact of meta-model evolution: a measure and its automotive application , 2017, Software & Systems Modeling.