On the configuration of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for PLA design optimization
Authors: 
Willian Freire, Simone Tonhão, Tiago Bonetti, Marcelo Shigenaga, William Cadette, Fernando Felizardo, Aline Amaral, Edson OliveiraJr, Thelma ColanziAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 11 - 20
Abstract
Search-based algorithms have been successfully applied in the Product Line Architecture (PLA) optimization using the seminal approach called Multi-Objective Approach for Product-Line Architecture Design (MOA4PLA). This approach produces a set of alternative PLA designs intending to improve the different factors being optimized. Currently, the MOA4PLA uses the NSGA-II algorithm, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) that can optimize several architectural properties simultaneously. Despite the promising results, studying the best values for the algorithm parameters is essential to obtain even better results. This is also crucial to ease the adoption of MOA4PLA by newcomers or non-expert companies willing to start using search-based software engineering to PLA design. Three crossover operators for the PLA design optimization were proposed recently. However, reference values for parameters have not been defined for PLA design optimization using crossover operators. In this context, the objective of this work is conducting an experimental study to discover which are the most effective crossover operators and the best values to configure the MOEA parameters, such as population size, number of generations, and mutation and crossover rates. A quantitative analysis based on quality indicators and statistical tests was performed using four PLA designs to determine the most suitable parameter values to the search-based algorithm. Empirical results pointed out the best combination of crossover operators and the most suitable values to configure MOA4PLA.
References
[1]
Andrea Arcuri and Lionel Briand. 2014. A hitchhiker’s guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineering. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 24, 3(2014), 219–250.
[2]
Andrea Arcuri and Gordon Fraser. 2011. On Parameter Tuning in Search Based Software Engineering. In 3rd Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering (SSBSE). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 33–47.
[3]
Andrea Arcuri and Gordon Fraser. 2013. Parameter tuning or default values? An empirical investigation in search-based software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 18, 3 (2013), 594–623.
[4]
Thelma Elita Colanzi, Wesley K. G. Assunção, Silvia R. Vergilio, Paulo Roberto Farah, and Giovani Guizzo. 2020. The Symposium on Search-Based Software Engineering: Past, Present and Future. Information and Software Technology 127 (2020), 106372.
[5]
Thelma Elita Colanzi and Silvia Regina Vergilio. 2016. A feature-driven crossover operator for multi-objective and evolutionary optimization of product line architectures. Journal of Systems and Software 121 (2016), 126–143.
[6]
Thelma Elita Colanzi, Silvia Regina Vergilio, Itana Gimenes, and Willian Nalepa Oizumi. 2014. A search-based approach for software product line design. In 18th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 237–241.
[7]
Diego F. da Silva. 2021. Operadores de Cruzamento para aprimorar a Otimização de Arquitetura de Linha de Produto de Software. Master’s thesis. Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação, Departamento de Informática, Maringá.
[8]
Diego F. da Silva, Luiz F. Okada, Thelma Elita Colanzi, and Wesley KG Assunção. 2020. Enhancing search-based product line design with crossover operators. In 22th Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1250–1258.
[9]
Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and Tamt Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 2(2002), 182–197.
[10]
Frank Van der Linden, Klaus Schmid, and Eelco Rommes. 2007. Software product lines in action: the best industrial practice in product line engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[11]
Eduardo Figueiredo, Nelio Cacho, Claudio Sant’Anna, Mario Monteiro, Uira Kulesza, Alessandro Garcia, Sergio Soares, Fabiano Ferrari, Safoora Khan, Fernando Castor Filho, 2008. Evolving software product lines with aspects. In 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, Leipzig, Germany, 261–270.
[12]
Willian Marques Freire, Simone de França Tonhão, Tiago Piperno Bonetti, Marcelo Yudi Shigenaga, William de Araujo Cadette, Fernando dos Santos Felizardo, Aline Maria Malachini Miotto Amaral, Edson OliveiraJr, and Thelma E. Colanzi. 2021. Experimental package - On the configuration of multi-objective evolutionary algorithmsfor PLA design optimization. Otimizes (UEM). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14903286
[13]
Willian Marques Freire, Mamoru Massago, Arthur Cattaneo Zavadski, Aline Maria Malachini Miotto Amaral, and Thelma Elita Colanzi. 2020. OPLA-Tool v2. 0: a Tool for Product Line Architecture Design Optimization. In 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 818–823.
[14]
David E. Goldberg. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., United States.
[15]
Mark Harman, Yue Jia, Jens Krinke, William B. Langdon, Justyna Petke, and Yuanyuan Zhang. 2014. Search based software engineering for software product line engineering: a survey and directions for future work. In 18th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5–18.
[16]
Mark Harman and Bryan F. Jones. 2001. Search-based software engineering. Information and Soft. Technology 43, 14 (2001), 833–839.
[17]
Martin Höst, Björn Regnell, and Claes Wohlin. 2000. Using students as subjects—a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering 5, 3 (2000), 201–214.
[18]
Antonio Contieri Jr, Guilherme Correia, Thelma Elita Colanzi, Itana Gimenes, Edson OliveiraJr, Sandra Ferrari, Paulo Masiero, and Alessandro Garcia. 2011. Extending UML components to develop software product-line architectures: Lessons learned. In 5th European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 130–138.
[19]
William Kruskal and Allen Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association 47, 260(1952), 583–621.
[20]
Luciane Baldo Nicolodi, Thelma Elita Colanzi, and Wesley K. G. Assunção. 2020. Architectural Feature Re-Modularization for Software Product Line Evolution. In 14th Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse (SBCARS). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–40.
[21]
Camila Nunes, Uirá Kulesza, Cláudio Sant’Anna, Ingrid Nunes, Alessandro Garcia, and Carlos de Lucena. 2009. Assessment of the Design Modularity and Stability of Multi-Agent System Product Lines. J. UCS 15, 11 (2009), 2254–2283.
[22]
Narcizo Palioto and Thelma Elita Colanzi. 2020. Configuração de Algoritmos Genéticos Multiobjetivos para Otimização de Projeto de Arquitetura de Linha de Produto. In Anais da IV Escola Regional de Engenharia de Software (ERES). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 204–213.
[23]
SEI. 2009. Arcade Game Maker pedagogical product line. SEI. https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=485941
[24]
Samuel Shapiro and Martin Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 3/4 (1965), 591–611.
[25]
András Vargha and Harold Delaney. 2000. A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25, 2(2000), 101–132.
[26]
Yenisei Delgado Verdecia, Thelma Elita Colanzi, Silvia Regina Vergilio, and Marcelo C. Santos. 2017. An Enhanced Evaluation Model for Search-based Product Line Architecture Design. In 20th Iberoamerican Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE). CIbSE, San Jose, Costa Rica, 155–168.
[27]
Milan Zeleny and James L. Cochrane. 1973. Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, United States.
[28]
Eckart Zitzler, Lothar Thiele, Marco Laumanns, Carlos M. Fonseca, and Viviane Grunert Da Fonseca. 2003. Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7, 2(2003), 117–132.
Index Terms
- On the configuration of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for PLA design optimization
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Intensifying the search-based optimization of product line architectures with crossover operators
AbstractThe Product Line Architecture (PLA) is a crucial artifact for the development of Software Product Lines. However, PLA is a complex artifact to be designed due to its large size and the multiple conflicting properties that need to be considered to ...
Enhancing search-based product line design with crossover operators
GECCO '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation ConferenceThe Product Line Architecture (PLA) is one of the most important artifacts of a Software Product Line. PLA designing has been formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem and successfully solved by a state-of-the-art search-based approach. ...
A new adaptive decomposition-based evolutionary algorithm for multi- and many-objective optimization
Highlights- An adaptive decomposition approach is proposed to guide the evolution process.
- ...
AbstractIn decomposition-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs), a set of uniformly distributed reference vectors (RVs) is usually adopted to decompose a multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) into several single-objective ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2021
109 pages
ISBN:9781450384193
DOI:10.1145/3483899
Copyright © 2021 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 05 October 2021
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SBCARS '21
SBCARS '21: Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures, and Reuse
September 27 - October 1, 2021
Joinville, Brazil
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 23 of 79 submissions, 29%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 62Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)12
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format