skip to main content
10.1145/3071178.3071261acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mining cross product line rules with multi-objective search and machine learning

Published: 01 July 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Nowadays, an increasing number of systems are being developed by integrating products (belonging to different product lines) that communicate with each other through information networks. Cost-effectively supporting Product Line Engineering (PLE) and in particular enabling automation of configuration in PLE is a challenge. Capturing rules is the key for enabling automation of configuration. Product configuration has a direct impact on runtime interactions of communicating products. Such products might be within or across product lines and there usually don't exist explicitly specified rules constraining configurable parameter values of such products. Manually specifying such rules is tedious, time-consuming, and requires expert's knowledge of the domain and the product lines. To address this challenge, we propose an approach named as SBRM that combines multi-objective search with machine learning to mine rules. To evaluate the proposed approach, we performed a real case study of two communicating Video Conferencing Systems belonging to two different product lines. Results show that SBRM performed significantly better than Random Search in terms of fitness values, Hyper-Volume, and machine learning quality measurements. When comparing with rules mined with real data, SBRM performed significantly better in terms of Failed Precision (18%), Failed Recall (72%), and Failed F-measure (59%).

References

[1]
Holl, G., Grünbacher, P., and Rabiser, R., 2012. A systematic review and an expert survey on capabilities supporting multi product lines. Information and Software Technology 54, 8, 828--852.
[2]
Rosenmüller, M. and Siegmund, N., 2010. Automating the Configuration of Multi Software Product Lines. In VaMoS (2010), 123--130.
[3]
Video Conferencing Systems. http://www.cisco.com/.
[4]
ULMA Handling Systems. http://www.ulmahandling.com.
[5]
Yue, T., Ali, S., and Selic, B., 2015. Cyber-Physical System Product Line Engineering: Comprehensive Domain Analysis and Experience Report. In Software Product Line Conference (2015), ACM, 338--347.
[6]
Bécan, G., Behjati, R., Gotlieb, A., and Acher, M., 2015. Synthesis of attributed feature models from product descriptions. In 19th International Conference on Software Product Line (2015), ACM, 1--10.
[7]
Nie, K., Yue, T., Ali, S., Zhang, L., and Fan, Z., 2013. Constraints: the core of supporting automated product configuration of cyber-physical systems. In Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Springer, 370--387.
[8]
Safdar, S.A., Yue, T., Ali, S., and Lu, H., 2016. Evaluating Variability Modeling Techniques for Supporting Cyber-Physical System Product Line Engineering. In International Conference on System Analysis and Modeling (2016), Springer, 1--19.
[9]
Lu, H., Yue, T., Ali, S., and Zhang, L., 2015. Model-based Incremental Conformance Checking to Enable Interactive Product Configuration. Information and Software Technology, 72, 68--89.
[10]
Lu, H., Yue, T., Ali, S., and Zhang, L., 2016. Nonconformity Resolving Recommendations for Product Line Configuration. In International Conference on Software Testing (2016), IEEE, 57--68.
[11]
Lu, H., Yue, T., Ali, S., Kunming, N., and Li, Z., 2014. Zen-CC: An Automated and Incremental Conformance Checking Solution to Support Interactive Product Configuration. In 25th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (2014), IEEE, 13--22.
[12]
Temple, P., Duarte, J.a.G., Acher, M., and Jézéquel, J.-M., 2016. Using Machine Learning to Infer Constraints for Product Lines. In Software Product Line Conference (2016), ACM, 209--218.
[13]
Nadi, S., Berger, T., Kästner, C., and Czarnecki, K., 2015. Where do configuration constraints stem from? an extraction approach and an empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 41, 8, 820--841.
[14]
Witten, I.H., Frank, E., and Hall, M.A., 2011. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.
[15]
Frank, E. and Witten, I.H., 1998. Generating accurate rule sets without global optimization. In 15th International Conference on Machine Learning (1998), 144--151.
[16]
Satti, A., Cercone, N., and Keselj, V., 2004. Experiments in Web Page Classification for Semantic Web. In Workshop on Web-based Support Systems (2004), 137--141.
[17]
Mcminn, P., 2004. Search-based software test data generation: a survey. Software Testing Verification and Reliability 14, 2, 105--156.
[18]
Ali, S., Iqbal, M.Z., Arcuri, A., and Briand, L.C., 2013. Generating test data from OCL constraints with search techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 10, 1376--1402.
[19]
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 2, 182--197.
[20]
Sarro, F., Petrozziello, A., and Harman, M., 2016. Multi-objective software effort estimation. In 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (2016), ACM, 619--630.
[21]
Pradhan, D., Wang, S., Ali, S., and Yue, T., 2016. Search-Based Cost-Effective Test Case Selection within a Time Budget: An Empirical Study. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (2016), ACM, 1085--1092.
[22]
Pradhan, D., Wang, S., Ali, S., Yue, T., and Liaaen, M., 2016. STIPI: Using Search to Prioritize Test Cases Based on Multi-objectives Derived from Industrial Practice. In International Conference on Testing Software and Systems (2016), Springer, 172--190.
[23]
Wang, S., Buchmann, D., Ali, S., Gotlieb, A., Pradhan, D., and Liaaen, M., 2014. Multi-objective test prioritization in software product line testing: an industrial case study. In 18th International Software Product Line Conference (2014), ACM, 32--41.
[24]
Wang, S., Ali, S., Yue, T., Li, Y., and Liaaen, M., 2016. A Practical Guide to Select Quality Indicators for Assessing Pareto-based Search Algorithms in Search-Based Software Engineering. In International Conference on Software Engineering (2016), ACM, 631--642.
[25]
Nebro, A.J., Luna, F., Alba, E., Dorronsoro, B., Durillo, J.J., and Beham, A., 2008. AbYSS: Adapting scatter search to multiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 12, 4, 439--457.
[26]
Sokolova, M. and Lapalme, G., 2009. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Information Processing & Management 45, 4, 427--437.
[27]
Han, J., Pei, J., and Kamber, M., 2011. Data mining: concepts & techniques. Elsevier.
[28]
Durillo, J.J. and Nebro, A.J., 2011. jMetal: A Java framework for multi-objective optimization. Advances in Engineering Software 42, 10, 760--771.
[29]
Arcuri, A. and Briand, L., 2011. A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineering. In 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (2011), IEEE, 1--10.
[30]
Ali, S. and Smith, K.A., 2006. On learning algorithm selection for classification. Applied Soft Computing 6, 2, 119--138.
[31]
Mann, H.B. and Whitney, D.R., 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals of mathematical statistics, 50--60.
[32]
Vargha, A. and Delaney, H.D., 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, 101--132.
[33]
Arcuri, A. and Fraser, G., 2011. On parameter tuning in search based software engineering. In Search Based Software Engineering, Springer, 33--41.
[34]
Holmes, G., Hall, M., and Prank, E., 1999. Generating rule sets from model trees. In Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1999), Springer, 1--12.
[35]
Lopez-Herrejon, R.E., Linsbauer, L., and Egyed, A., 2015. A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines. Information and Software Technology 61, 33--51.
[36]
Harman, M., Jia, Y., Krinke, J., Langdon, W.B., Petke, J., and Zhang, Y., 2014. Search based software engineering for software product line engineering: a survey and directions for future work. In 18th International Software Product Line Conference (2014), ACM, 5--18.
[37]
Wang, S., Ali, S., and Gotlieb, A., 2014. Cost-effective test suite minimization in product lines using search techniques. Journal of Systems and Software, 370--391.
[38]
Yi, L., Zhang, W., Zhao, H., Jin, Z., and Mei, H., 2012. Mining binary constraints in the construction of feature models. In 20th International Requirements Engineering Conference (2012), IEEE, 141--150.
[39]
Zhang, B. and Becker, M., 2013. Mining complex feature correlations from software product line configurations. In 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (2013), ACM, 19--25.
[40]
Nadi, S., Berger, T., Kästner, C., and Czarnecki, K., 2014. Mining configuration constraints: Static analyses and empirical results. In 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (2014), ACM, 140--151.
[41]
Czarnecki, K., She, S., and Wasowski, A., 2008. Sample spaces and feature models: There and back again. In 12th International Software Product Line Conference (2008), IEEE, 22--31.
[42]
Dumitru, H., Gibiec, M., Hariri, N., Cleland-Huang, J., Mobasher, B., Castro-Herrera, C., and Mirakhorli, M., 2011. On-demand feature recommendations derived from mining public product descriptions. In 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (2011), IEEE, 181--190.
[43]
Softpedia. http://www.softpedia.com.
[44]
Hariri, N., Castro-Herrera, C., Mirakhorli, M., Cleland-Huang, J., and Mobasher, B., 2013. Supporting domain analysis through mining and recommending features from online product listings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 12, 1736--1752.
[45]
Davril, J.-M., Delfosse, E., Hariri, N., Acher, M., Cleland-Huang, J., and Heymans, P., 2013. Feature model extraction from large collections of informal product descriptions. In 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (2013), ACM, 290--300.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Uncertainty-aware Prediction Validator in Deep Learning Models for Cyber-physical System DataACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/352745131:4(1-31)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Continuous and Proactive Software Architecture Evaluation: An IoT CaseACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/349276231:3(1-54)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Transfer Learning Across Variants and Versions: The Case of Linux Kernel SizeIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2021.311676848:11(4274-4290)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
GECCO '17: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
July 2017
1427 pages
ISBN:9781450349208
DOI:10.1145/3071178
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. configuration
  2. machine learning
  3. multi-objective search
  4. product line
  5. rule mining

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • EU Horizon
  • Research Council of Norway
  • EU COST action MPM4CPS
  • RFF Hovedstaden

Conference

GECCO '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

GECCO '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 178 of 462 submissions, 39%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,669 of 4,410 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Uncertainty-aware Prediction Validator in Deep Learning Models for Cyber-physical System DataACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/352745131:4(1-31)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Continuous and Proactive Software Architecture Evaluation: An IoT CaseACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/349276231:3(1-54)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Transfer Learning Across Variants and Versions: The Case of Linux Kernel SizeIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2021.311676848:11(4274-4290)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Extracting domain behaviors through multi-criteria, polymorphism-inspired variability analysisInformation Systems10.1016/j.is.2021.101882108(101882)Online publication date: Sep-2022
  • (2022)On the preferences of quality indicators for multi-objective search algorithms in search-based software engineeringEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-022-10127-427:6Online publication date: 6-Aug-2022
  • (2022)Machine Learning for Feature Constraints DiscoveryHandbook of Re-Engineering Software Intensive Systems into Software Product Lines10.1007/978-3-031-11686-5_7(175-196)Online publication date: 5-Jul-2022
  • (2021)A comparison of performance specialization learning for configurable systemsProceedings of the 25th ACM International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume A10.1145/3461001.3471155(46-57)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2021
  • (2020)Quality Indicators in Search-based Software EngineeringACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/337563629:2(1-29)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2020
  • (2020)A framework for automated multi-stage and multi-step product configuration of cyber-physical systemsSoftware and Systems Modeling10.1007/s10270-020-00803-8Online publication date: 13-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Automated Requirements Extraction and Product Configuration Verification for Software Product LineAutomated Software Testing10.1007/978-981-15-2455-4_2(27-51)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media