[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

On Estimating the Feasible Solution Space of Multi-objective Testing Resource Allocation

Published: 27 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The multi-objective testing resource allocation problem (MOTRAP) is concerned on how to reasonably plan the testing time of software testers to save the cost and improve the reliability as much as possible. The feasible solution space of a MOTRAP is determined by its variables (i.e., the time invested in each component) and constraints (e.g., the pre-specified reliability, cost, or time). Although a variety of state-of-the-art constrained multi-objective optimisers can be used to find individual solutions in this space, their search remains inefficient and expensive due to the fact that this space is very tiny compared to the large search space. The decision maker may often suffer a prolonged but unsuccessful search that fails to return a feasible solution. In this work, we first formulate a heavily constrained MOTRAP on the basis of an architecture-based model, in which reliability, cost, and time are optimised under the pre-specified multiple constraints on reliability, cost, and time. Then, to estimate the feasible solution space of this specific MOTRAP, we develop theoretical and algorithmic approaches to deduce new tighter lower and upper bounds on variables from constraints. Importantly, our approach can help the decision maker identify whether their constraint settings are practicable, and meanwhile, the derived bounds can just enclose the tiny feasible solution space and help off-the-shelf constrained multi-objective optimisers make the search within the feasible solution space as much as possible. Additionally, to further make good use of these bounds, we propose a generalised bound constraint handling method that can be readily employed by constrained multi-objective optimisers to pull infeasible solutions back into the estimated space with theoretical guarantee. Finally, we evaluate our approach on application and empirical cases. Experimental results reveal that our approach significantly enhances the efficiency, effectiveness, and robustness of off-the-shelf constrained multi-objective optimisers and state-of-the-art bound constraint handling methods at finding high-quality solutions for the decision maker. These improvements may help the decision maker take the stress out of setting constraints and selecting constrained multi-objective optimisers and facilitate the testing planning more efficiently and effectively.

References

[1]
V. Almering, M. Van Genuchten, G. Cloudt, and P. J. M. Sonnemans. 2007. Using software reliability growth models in practice. IEEE Softw. 24, 6 (2007), 82–88.
[2]
A. Arcuri and L. Briand. 2011. A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 1–10.
[3]
M. E. Bajta, A. Idri, J. L. Fernandez-Aleman, J. N. Ros, and A. Toval. 2015. Software cost estimation for global software development a systematic map and review study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. ScitePress, 197–206.
[4]
T. Chen, K. Li, R. Bahsoon, and X. Yao. 2016. FEMOSAA: Feature-guided and knee-driven multi-objective optimization for self-adaptive software. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 27, 2, Article 5 (2016), 50 pages.
[5]
A. Choudhary, A. S. Baghel, and O. P. Sangwan. 2017. Efficient parameter estimation of software reliability growth models using harmony search. IET Softw. 11, 6 (2017), 286–291.
[6]
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 6, 2 (2002), 182–197.
[7]
M. T. M. Emmerich and A. H. Deutz. 2018. A tutorial on multiobjective optimization: Fundamentals and evolutionary methods. Nat. Comput.g 17, 3 (2018), 585–609.
[8]
Z. Fan, W. Li, X. Cai, H. Huang, Y. Fang, Y. You, J. Mo, C. Wei, and E. D. Goodman. 2019. An improved epsilon constraint-handling method in MOEA/D for CMOPs with large infeasible regions. Soft Comput. 23, 23 (2019), 12491–12510.
[9]
L. Fiondella and S. S. Gokhale. 2012. Optimal allocation of testing effort considering software architecture. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 61, 2 (2012), 580–589.
[10]
L. Fiondella, S. Rajasekaran, and S. S. Gokhale. 2013. Efficient software reliability analysis with correlated component failures. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 62, 1 (2013), 244–255.
[11]
R. Garg, S. Raheja, and R. K. Garg. 2022. Decision support system for optimal selection of software reliability growth models using a hybrid approach. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 71, 1 (2022), 149–161.
[12]
A. L. Goel and K. Okumoto. 1979. Time-dependent error-detection rate model for software reliability and other performance measures. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. R-28, 3 (1979), 206–211.
[13]
S. S. Gokhale and M. R. Lyu. 2005. A simulation approach to structure-based software reliability analysis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 8 (2005), 643–656.
[14]
K. Goseva-Popstojanova, A. P. Mathur, and K. S. Trivedi. 2001. Comparison of architecture-based software reliability models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE, 22–31.
[15]
S. Herbold. 2021. On the costs and profit of software defect prediction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 47, 11 (2021), 2617–2631.
[16]
R. M. Hierons, M. Li, X. Liu, J. A. Parejo, S. Segura, and X. Yao. 2020. Many-objective test suite generation for software product lines. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 1, Article 2 (2020), 46 pages.
[17]
R. M. Hierons, M. Li, X. Liu, S. Segura, and W. Zheng. 2016. SIP: Optimal product selection from feature models using many-objective evolutionary optimisation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 25, 2, Article 17 (2016), 39 pages.
[18]
C. Hsu and C. Huang. 2011. An adaptive reliability analysis using path testing for complex component-based software systems. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 60, 1 (2011), 158–170.
[19]
C. Hsu and C. Huang. 2014. Optimal weighted combinational models for software reliability estimation and analysis. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 63, 3 (2014), 731–749.
[20]
C. Y. Huang, S. Y. Kuo, and M. R. Lyu. 2007. An assessment of testing-effort dependent software reliability growth models. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 56, 2 (2007), 198–211.
[21]
C. Y. Huang and J. H. Lo. 2006. Optimal resource allocation for cost and reliability of modular software systems in the testing phase. J. Syst. Softw. 79, 5 (2006), 653–664.
[22]
H. Ishibuchi, H. Masuda, Y. Tanigaki, and Y. Nojima. 2015. Modified distance calculation in generational distance and inverted generational distance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization. Springer, 110–125.
[23]
M. Jorgensen and M. Shepperd. 2007. A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 1 (2007), 33–53.
[24]
F. Khorram, J. M. Mottu, and G. Sunyé. 2020. Challenges & opportunities in low-code testing. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. ACM, Article 70, 10 pages.
[25]
M. Kimura, T. Toyota, and S. Yamada. 1999. Economic analysis of software release problems with warranty cost and reliability requirement. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Safety 66, 1 (1999), 49–55.
[26]
M. Li, T. Chen, and X. Yao. 2020. How to evaluate solutions in Pareto-based search-based software engineering? A critical review and methodological guidance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09040.
[27]
J. H. Lo, S. Y. Kuo, M. R. Lyu, and C. Y. Huang. 2002. Optimal resource allocation and reliability analysis for component-based software applications. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications. IEEE, 7–12.
[28]
E. López-Camacho, M. J. G. Godoy, A. J. Nebro, and J. F. Aldana-Montes. 2014. jMetalCpp: Optimizing molecular docking problems with a C++ metaheuristic framework. Bioinformatics 30, 4 (2014), 437–438.
[29]
Y. Luo, P. Liang, C. Wang, M. Shahin, and J. Zhan. 2021. Characteristics and challenges of low-code development: The practitioners’ perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM, Article 12, 11 pages.
[30]
M. R. Lyu, S. Rangarajan, and A. P. A. Van Moorsel. 2002. Time-dependent error-detection rate model for software reliability and other performance measures. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 51, 2 (2002), 183–192.
[31]
Z. Ma and Y. Wang. 2019. Evolutionary constrained multiobjective optimization: Test suite construction and performance comparisons. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 23, 6 (2019), 972–986.
[32]
A. J. Nebro, J. J. Durillo, J. Garcia-Nieto, C. A. Coello Coello, F. Luna, and E. Alba. 2009. SMPSO: A new PSO-based metaheuristic for multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. IEEE., 66–73.
[33]
H. Ohtera and S. Yamada. 1990. Optimal allocation and control problems for software-testing resource. IEEE Trans. Reliabl. 39, 2 (1990), 171–176.
[34]
H. Okamura and T. Dohi. 2018. Optimizing testing-resource allocation using architecture-based software reliability model. J. Optimiz. 2018, Article 6948656 (2018), 7 pages.
[35]
N. Padhye, P. Mittal, and K. Deb. 2015. Feasibility preserving constraint-handling strategies for real parameter evolutionary optimization. Comput. Optimiz. Appl. 62, 3 (2015), 851–890.
[36]
A. Pasquini, A. N. Crespo, and P. Matrella. 1996. Sensitivity of reliability-growth models to operational profile errors vs. testing accuracy. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 45, 4 (1996), 531–540.
[37]
R. Pietrantuono. 2020. On the testing resource allocation problem: Research trends and perspectives. J. Syst. Softw. 61, Article 110462 (2020).
[38]
R. Pietrantuono, P. Potena, A. Pecchia, D. Rodriguez, S. Russo, and L. Fernández-Sanz. 2018. Multiobjective testing resource allocation under uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 22, 3 (2018), 347–362.
[39]
R. Pietrantuono, S. Russo, and K. S. Trivedi. 2010. Software reliability and testing time allocation: An architecture-based approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 3 (2010), 323–337.
[40]
D. Pradhan, S. Wang, S. Ali, T. Yue, and M. Liaaen. 2021. CBGA-ES\(^+\): A cluster-based genetic algorithm with non-dominated elitist selection for supporting multi-objective test optimization. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 47, 1 (2021), 86–107.
[41]
P. Rani and G. S. Mahapatra. 2021. Entropy based enhanced particle swarm optimization on multi-objective software reliability modelling for optimal testing resources allocation. Life Cycle Reliabil. Safety Eng. 31, 6, Article e1765 (2021), 17 pages.
[42]
S. A. Safdar, T. Yue, and S. Ali. 2021. Recommending faulty configurations for interacting systems under test using multi-objective search. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 30, 4, Article 53 (2021), 36 pages.
[43]
S. Scalabrino, A. Mastropaolo, G. Bavota, and R. Oliveto. 2021. An adaptive search budget allocation approach for search-based test case generation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 30, 3, Article 36 (2021), 26 pages.
[44]
K. Sharma, R. Garg, C. K. Nagpal, and R. K. Garg. 2010. Selection of optimal software reliability growth models using a distance based approach. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 59, 2 (2010), 266–276.
[45]
K. Shi. 2017. Combining evolutionary algorithms with constraint solving for configuration optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE, 665–669.
[46]
L. K. Singh, G. Vinod, and A. K. Tripathi. 2015. Approach for parameter estimation in Markov model of software reliability for early prediction: A case study. IET Softw. 9, 3 (2015), 65–75.
[47]
Z. Su, G. Zhang, F. Yue, D. Zhan, M. Li, B. Li, and X. Yao. 2021. Enhanced constraint handling for reliability-constrained multi-objective testing resource allocation. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 25, 3 (2021), 537–551.
[48]
C. Szyperski, D. Gruntz, and S. Murer. 2002. Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming (2nd. ed.). Addison-Wesley, MA.
[49]
Y. Tian, T. Zhang, J. Xiao, X. Zhang, and Y. Jin. 2021. A coevolutionary framework for constrained multi-objective optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 25, 1 (2021), 102–116.
[50]
S. Ukimoto, T. Dohi, and H. Okamura. 2012. Software testing-resource allocation with operational profile. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM, 1203–1208.
[51]
A. Vargha and H. D. Delaney. 2000. A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. J. Edu. Behav. Stat. 25, 2 (2000), 101–132.
[52]
Z. Wang, K. Tang, and X. Yao. 2008. A multi-objective approach to testing resource allocation in modular software systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, 1148–1153.
[53]
Z. Wang, K. Tang, and X. Yao. 2010. Multi-objective approaches to optimal testing resource allocation in modular software systems. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 59, 3 (2010), 563–575.
[54]
K. Werder, Y. Li, A. Maedche, and B. Ramesh. 2021. Software development process ambidexterity and project performance: A coordination cost-effectiveness view. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 47, 4 (2021), 836–849.
[55]
F. Wilcoxon. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometr. Bull. 1, 6 (1945), 80–83.
[56]
Y. G. Woldesenbet, B. G. Tessema, and G. G. Yen. 2007. Constraint handling in multi-objective evolutionary optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE, 3077–3084.
[57]
Y. G. Woldesenbet, G. G. Yen, and B. G. Tessema. 2009. Constraint handling in multiobjective evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 13, 3 (2009), 514–525.
[58]
H. Wu, C. Nie, J. Petke, Y. Jia, and M. Harman. 2021. Comparative analysis of constraint handling techniques for constrained combinatorial testing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 47, 11 (2021), 2549–2562.
[59]
Y. Xiang, Y. Zhou, Z. Zheng, and M. Li. 2018. Configuring software product lines by combining many-objective optimization and SAT solvers. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 26, 14, Article 14 (2018), 46 pages.
[60]
X. Xiao, T. Dohi, and H. Okamura. 2018. Optimal software testing-resource allocation with operational profile: Computational aspects. Life Cycle Reliabil. Safety Eng. 7 (2018), 269–283.
[61]
M. Xie and B. Yang. 2003. A study of the effect of imperfect debugging on software development cost. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29, 5 (2003), 471–473.
[62]
Y. X. Xue and Y. F. Li. 2020. Multi-objective integer programming approaches for solving the multi-criteria test-suite minimization problem: Towards sound and complete solutions of a particular search-based software-engineering problem. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 3, Article 20 (2020), 50 pages.
[63]
B. Yang, Y. Hu, and C. Y. Huang. 2015. An architecture-based multi-objective optimization approach to testing resource allocation. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 64, 1 (2015), 497–515.
[64]
S. Yu, F. Dong, and B. Li. 2013. Optimal testing resource allocation for modular software systems based-on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms with effective local search strategy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Memetic Computing. IEEE, 1–8.
[65]
P. Zeephongsekul, C. L. Jayasinghe, L. Fiondella, and V. Nagaraju. 2016. Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of NHPP software reliability models using expectation conditional maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 65, 3 (2016), 1571–1583.
[66]
G. Zhang, L. Li, Z. Su, Z. Shao, M. Li, B. Li, and X. Yao. 2023. New reliability-driven bounds for architecture-based multi-objective testing resource allocation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 49, 4 (2023), 2513–2529.
[67]
G. Zhang, Z. Su, M. Li, F. Yue, J. Jiang, and X. Yao. 2017. Constraint handling in NSGA-II for solving optimal testing resource allocation problems. IEEE Trans. Reliabil. 66, 4 (2017), 1193–1212.
[68]
X. H. Zhang, T. F. Stafford, T. Hu, and H. Dai. 2020. Measuring task conflict and person conflict in software testing. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 4, Article 25 (2020), 19 pages.
[69]
E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. 1998. Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms—A comparative case study. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Springer, 292–301.

Index Terms

  1. On Estimating the Feasible Solution Space of Multi-objective Testing Resource Allocation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
    ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 33, Issue 6
    July 2024
    951 pages
    EISSN:1557-7392
    DOI:10.1145/3613693
    • Editor:
    • Mauro Pezzé
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 June 2024
    Online AM: 26 March 2024
    Accepted: 05 March 2024
    Revised: 25 February 2024
    Received: 08 December 2023
    Published in TOSEM Volume 33, Issue 6

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Multi-objective multi-constraint testing resource allocation
    2. constrained multi-objective optimisers
    3. estimation of feasible solution space
    4. lower and upper bounds
    5. bound constraint handling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • Anhui Provincial Key Research and Development Program
    • Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation
    • Fundamental Research Funds
    • Central Universities

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 201
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)201
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27
    Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media