skip to main content
research-article

Uncertainty-wise Requirements Prioritization with Search

Published: 31 December 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Requirements review is an effective technique to ensure the quality of requirements in practice, especially in safety-critical domains (e.g., avionics systems, automotive systems). In such contexts, a typical requirements review process often prioritizes requirements, due to limited time and monetary budget, by, for instance, prioritizing requirements with higher implementation cost earlier in the review process. However, such a requirement implementation cost is typically estimated by stakeholders who often lack knowledge about (future) requirements implementation scenarios, which leads to uncertainty in cost overrun. In this article, we explicitly consider such uncertainty (quantified as cost overrun probability) when prioritizing requirements based on the assumption that a requirement with higher importance, a higher number of dependencies to other requirements, and higher implementation cost will be reviewed with the higher priority. Motivated by this, we formulate four objectives for uncertainty-wise requirements prioritization: maximizing the importance of requirements, requirements dependencies, the implementation cost of requirements, and cost overrun probability. These four objectives are integrated as part of our search-based uncertainty-wise requirements prioritization approach with tool support, named as URP. We evaluated six Multi-Objective Search Algorithms (MOSAs) (i.e., NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOCell, SPEA2, IBEA, and PAES) together with Random Search (RS) using three real-world datasets (i.e., the RALIC, Word, and ReleasePlanner datasets) and 19 synthetic optimization problems. Results show that all the selected MOSAs can solve the requirements prioritization problem with significantly better performance than RS. Among them, IBEA was over 40% better than RS in terms of permutation effectiveness for the first 10% of prioritized requirements in the prioritization sequence of all three datasets. In addition, IBEA achieved the best performance in terms of the convergence of solutions, and NSGA-III performed the best when considering both the convergence and diversity of nondominated solutions.

References

[1]
Klaus Pohl. 2010. Requirements engineering: Fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer Publishing Company, Inc
[2]
YangMing Zhu. 2016. Software Reading Techniques. Apress, Berkeley, CA.
[3]
Norman Riegel and Joerg Doerr. 2015. A systematic literature review of requirements prioritization criteria. In Proceedings of the Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ’15). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 9013, S. Fricker and K. Schneider (Eds). Springer, Cham, 300--317.
[4]
Jack Shih-Chieh Hsu, Chien-Lung Chan, Julie Yu-Chih Liu, and Houn-Gee Chen. 2008. The impacts of user review on software responsiveness: Moderating requirements uncertainty. Info. Manage. 45, 4 (2008), 203--210.
[5]
Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, and Neil Iscoe. 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun. ACM 31, 11 (1988), 1268--1287.
[6]
Ann M. Hickey and Alan M. Davis. 2004. A unified model of requirements elicitation. J. Manage. Info. Syst. 20, 4 (2004), 65--84.
[7]
Christof Ebert and Jozef De Man. 2005. Requirements uncertainty: Influencing factors and concrete improvements. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 553--560.
[8]
Lingbo Li, Mark Harman, Fan Wu, and Yuanyuan Zhang. 2016. The value of exact analysis in requirements selection. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43, 6 (2017), 580--596.
[9]
Emmanuel Letier, David Stefan, and Earl T. Barr. 2014. Uncertainty, risk, and information value in software requirements and architecture. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 883--894.
[10]
Patrik Berander and Anneliese Andrews, 2005. Requirements prioritization. In Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, Aybüke Aurum and Claes Wohlin (Eds). Springer, 69--94.
[11]
Andrea Herrmann and Maya Daneva. 2008. Requirements prioritization based on benefit and cost prediction: An agenda for future research. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE, 125--134.
[12]
Lingbo Li, Mark Harman, Emmanuel Letier, and Yuanyuan Zhang. 2014. Robust next release problem: Handling uncertainty during optimization. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. ACM, 1247--1254.
[13]
Olugbenga Jide Olaniran, Peter E. D. Love, David Edwards, Oluwole Alfred Olatunji, and Jane Matthews. 2015. Cost overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects: A critical review and implications for research. Project Manage. J. 46, 6 (2015), 126--138.
[14]
Paul Baker, Mark Harman, Kathleen Steinhöfel, and Alexandros Skaliotis. 2006. Search based approaches to component selection and prioritization for the next release problem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, 176--185.
[15]
Antônio Mauricio Pitangueira, Rita Suzana P. Maciel, and Márcio Barros. 2015. Software requirements selection and prioritization using sbse approaches: A systematic review and mapping of the literature. J. Syst. Softw. 103 (2015), 267--280.
[16]
Alan M. Davis. 2003. The art of requirements triage. IEEE Comput. 36, 3 (2003), 42--49.
[17]
John M. Hammersley and D. C. Handscomb. 1965. Monte Carlo Methods. Chapman and Hall, London.
[18]
David Johnson. 1997. The triangular distribution as a proxy for the beta distribution in risk analysis. J. Roy. Stat. Soci.: Series D (The Statistician) 46, 3 (1997), 387--398.
[19]
Juan J. Durillo and Antonio J. Nebro. 2011. Jmetal: A java framework for multi-objective optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 42, 10 (2011), 760--771.
[20]
Soo Ling Lim. 2010. Social networks and collaborative filtering for large-scale requirements elicitation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of New South Wales.
[21]
Antonio Mauricio Pitangueira, Paolo Tonella, Angelo Susi, Rita Suzana Maciel, and Marcio Barros, 2016. Risk-aware multi-stakeholder next release planning using multi-objective optimization. In Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. Refsq 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 9619, M. Daneva and O. Pastor (Eds). Springer, Cham, 3--18.
[22]
Muhammad Rezaul Karim and Guenther Ruhe. 2014. Bi-objective genetic search for release planning in support of themes. In Proceedings of the Conference on Search-Based Software Engineering (SSBSE’14). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 8636, C. Le Goues and S. Yoo (Eds). Springer, Cham, 123--137.
[23]
Victor R. Basili, Scott Green, Oliver Laitenberger, Filippo Lanubile, Forrest Shull, Sivert Sørumgård, and Marvin V Zelkowitz. 1996. The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1 (1996), 133--164.
[24]
Yan Li, Man Zhang, Tao Yue, Shaukat Ali, and Li Zhang. 2017. Search-based uncertainty-wise requirements prioritization. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS’17). IEEE, 80--89.
[25]
Yuanyuan Zhang, Mark Harman, Gabriela Ochoa, Guenther Ruhe, and Sjaak Brinkkemper. 2018. An empirical study of meta-and hyper-heuristic search for multi-objective release planning. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 27, 1 (2018), Article No.: 3.
[26]
Yuanyuan Zhang, Anthony Finkelstein, and Mark Harman. 2008. Search based requirements optimisation: Existing work and challenges. In Proceedings of the Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ’08). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5025, B. Paech and C. Rolland (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 88--94.
[27]
Abdel Salam Sayyad and Hany Ammar. 2013. Pareto-optimal search-based software engineering (posbse): A literature survey. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Realizing Artificial Intelligence Synergies in Software Engineering (RAISE’13) IEEE, San Francisco, CA, 21--27.
[28]
Shaukat Ali, Paolo Arcaini, Dipesh Pradhan, Safdar Aqeel Safdar, and Tao Yue. 2020. Quality indicators in search-based software engineering: An empirical evaluation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 2 (2020), Article No. 10.
[29]
Mark Harman, S. Afshin Mansouri, and Yuanyuan Zhang. 2012. Search-based software engineering: Trends, techniques and applications. ACM Comput. Surveys 45, 1 (2012), Article No. 11.
[30]
Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. A. M. T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-Ii. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 6, 2 (2002), 182--197.
[31]
Mark Harman and Phil McMinn. 2010. A theoretical and empirical study of search-based testing: Local, global, and hybrid search. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 2 (2010), 226--247.
[32]
Abdullah Konak, David W. Coit, and Alice E. Smith. 2006. Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Safety 91, 9 (2006), 992--1007.
[33]
Kalyanmoy Deb and Himanshu Jain. 2014. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: Solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 18, 4 (2013), 577--601.
[34]
Himanshu Jain and Kalyanmoy Deb. 2014. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, part Ii: Handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 18, 4 (2014), 602--622.
[35]
Indraneel Das and John E. Dennis. 1998. Normal-boundary intersection: A new method for generating the pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM J. Optimiz. 8, 3 (1998), 631--657.
[36]
Antonio J. Nebro, Juan J. Durillo, Francisco Luna, Bernabé Dorronsoro, and Enrique Alba, 2007. Design issues in a multiobjective cellular genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO’07). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 4403, S. Obayashi, K. Deb, C. Poloni, T. Hiroyasu, and T. Murata (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 126--140.
[37]
Eckart Zitzler, Marco Laumanns, and Lothar Thiele. 2001. Spea2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. TIK-Report 103. Department of Electrical EngineeringSwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich.
[38]
Eckart Zitzler and Simon Künzli. 2004. Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In Proceedings of the Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN’04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 3242, Xin Yao et al. (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 832--842.
[39]
Joshua D. Knowles and David W. Corne. 1999. The pareto archived evolution strategy: A new baseline algorithm for pareto multiobjective optimisation. In Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’99). IEEE, 98--105.
[40]
Shaukat Ali, Lionel C. Briand, Hadi Hemmati, and Rajwinder Kaur Panesar-Walawege. 2010. A systematic review of the application and empirical investigation of search-based test case generation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36, 6 (2010), 742--762.
[41]
Mark Harman and Bryan F. Jones. 2001. Search-based software engineering. Info. Softw. Technol. 43, 14 (2001), 833--839.
[42]
Joachim Karlsson. 1996. Software requirements prioritizing. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE, 110--116.
[43]
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2018. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 Systems and software engineering – Life cycle processes – Requirements engineering.
[44]
Yuanyuan Zhang, Mark Harman, and Soo Ling Lim. 2013. Empirical evaluation of search based requirements interaction management. Info. Softw. Technol. 55, 1 (2013), 126--152.
[45]
Åsa G. Dahlstedt and Anne Persson. 2005. Requirements interdependencies: State of the art and future challenges. In Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, Springer, A. Aurum and C. Wohlin (Eds). 95—116.
[46]
Barry Boehm, Chris Abts, and Sunita Chulani. 2000. Software development cost estimation approaches—A survey. Ann. Softw. Eng. 10 (Nov. 2000), 177--205.
[47]
Barry Boehm, Ray Madachy, and Bert Steece. 2000. Software cost estimation with Cocomo II with CDROM. Prentice Hall PTR, United States.
[48]
Olaf Helmer, Bernice Brown, and Theodore Gordon. 1966. Social Technology. Basic Books, New York, NY.
[49]
Andrew R. Gray and Stephen G. MacDonell. 1997. A comparison of techniques for developing predictive models of software metrics. Info. Softw. Technol. 39, 6 (1997), 425--437.
[50]
Jay Wright Forrester. 1997. Industrial dynamics. J. Operation. Res. Soc. 48, 10 (1997), 1037--1041.
[51]
Sunita Chulani, Barry Boehm, and Bert Steece. 1999. Bayesian analysis of empirical software engineering cost models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 4 (1999), 573--583.
[52]
Abraham Charnes, William W. Cooper, and Edwardo Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European J. Operation. Res. 2, 6 (1978), 429—444.
[53]
Chiang Kao and Shiang-Tai Liu. 2000. Fuzzy efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 113, 3 (2000), 427--437.
[54]
William W. Cooper, Kyung Sam Park, and Gang Yu. 1999. Idea and ar-idea: Models for dealing with imprecise data in dea. Manage. Sci. 45, 4 (1999), 597--607.
[55]
Dennis Aigner, C. A. Knox Lovell, and Peter Schmidt. 1977. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J. Econometr. 6, 1 (1977), 21--37.
[56]
Majid Azadi, Reza Farzipoor Saen, and Madjid Tavana. 2012. Supplier selection using chance-constrained data envelopment analysis with non-discretionary factors and stochastic data. Int. J. Industr. Syst. Eng. 10, 2 (2012), 167--196.
[57]
Scott E. Atkinson and Paul W. Wilson. 1995. Comparing mean efficiency and productivity scores from small samples: A bootstrap methodology. J. Product. Anal. 6, 2 (1995), 137--152.
[58]
Chiang Kao and Shiang-Tai Liu. 2009. Stochastic data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of taiwan commercial banks. Eur. J. Operation. Res. 196, 1 (2009), 312--322.
[59]
R. G. Dyson and Estelle A. Shale. 2010. Data envelopment analysis, operational research and uncertainty. J. Operation. Res. Soc. 61, 1 (2010), 25--34.
[60]
Magne Jørgensen and Kjetil Moløkken-Østvold. 2006. How large are software cost overruns? A review of the 1994 chaos report. Info. Softw. Technol. 48, 4 (2006), 297--301.
[61]
Michael Bloch, Sven Blumberg, and Jürgen Laartz. 2012. Delivering large-scale it projects on time, on budget, and on value. In Harvard Business Review. 2--7.
[62]
Boehm Barry. 1981. Software engineering economics. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[63]
Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science 8 Business Media.
[64]
Barbara A. Kitchenham, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Lesley M. Pickard, Peter W. Jones, David C. Hoaglin, Khaled El Emam, and Jarrett Rosenberg. 2002. Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28, 8 (2002), 721--734.
[65]
Soo Ling Lim and Anthony Finkelstein. 2011. Stakerare: Using social networks and collaborative filtering for large-scale requirements elicitation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38, 3 (2012), 707--735.
[66]
Shuai Wang, Shaukat Ali, Tao Yue, Yan Li, and Marius Liaaen. 2016. A practical guide to select quality indicators for assessing pareto-based search algorithms in search-based software engineering. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 631--642.
[67]
Andrea Arcuri. 2013. It really does matter how you normalize the branch distance in search-based software testing. Softw. Test. Verificat. Reliabil. 23, 2 (2013), 119--147.
[68]
Barbara Kitchenham, Lech Madeyski, David Budgen, Jacky Keung, Pearl Brereton, Stuart Charters, Shirley Gibbs, and Amnart Pohthong. 2016. Robust statistical methods for empirical software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22 (2016), 579--630.
[69]
Andrea Arcuri and Lionel 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 (ICSE’11). IEEE, 1-10.
[70]
R-Core-Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/.
[71]
Indra M. Chakravarty, J. D. Roy, and Radha Govind Laha. 1967. Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
[72]
William H. Kruskal and W. Allen Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 47, 260 (1952), 583--621.
[73]
András Vargha and Harold D. Delaney. 2000. A critique and improvement of the cl common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. J. Education. Behav. Stat. 25, 2 (2000), 101--132.
[74]
Olive Jean Dunn. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6, 3 (1964), 241--252.
[75]
Carlo E. Bonferroni. 1936. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Libreria Internazionale Seeber.
[76]
Maurice G. Kendall. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 1/2 (1938), 81--93.
[77]
Yuanyuan Zhang, Mark Harman, and S. Afshin Mansouri. 2007. The multi-objective next release problem. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. ACM, 1129--1137.
[78]
Shin Yoo and Mark Harman. 2007. Pareto efficient multi-objective test case selection. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. 140--150.
[79]
Aurora Ramirez, José Raúl Romero, and Sebastian Ventura. 2019. A survey of many-objective optimisation in search-based software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 149 (2019), 382--395.
[80]
Wiem Mkaouer, Marouane Kessentini, Adnan Shaout, Patrice Koligheu, Slim Bechikh, Kalyanmoy Deb, and Ali Ouni. 2015. Many-objective software remodularization using nsga-iii. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24, 3 (2015), Article No. 17.
[81]
David E. Goldberg and Robert Lingle. 1985. Alleles, loci, and the traveling salesman problem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 154--159.
[82]
Andrea Arcuri and Gordon Fraser. 2011. On parameter tuning in search based software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering (SSBSE’11). M. B. Cohen and M. Ó Cinnéide (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 33--47.
[83]
Kalyanmoy Deb and Ram Bhushan Agrawal. 1995. Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Technical Report IITK/ME/SMD-94027. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology.
[84]
Bingdong Li, Jinlong Li, Ke Tang, and Xin Yao. 2015. Many-objective evolutionary algorithms: A survey. ACM Comput. Surveys 48, 1 (2015), Article No. 13.
[85]
Tom Gilb. 2005. Competitive engineering: A handbook for systems engineering, requirements engineering, and software engineering using planguage. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA.
[86]
Pär Carlshamre, Kristian Sandahl, Mikael Lindvall, Björn Regnell, and Och Dag J. Nattz. 2001. An industrial survey of requirements interdependencies in software product release planning. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE, 84--91.
[87]
Klaus Pohl. 1996. Process-centered requirements engineering. John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
[88]
Johan Dag, Björn Regnell, Pär Carlshamre, Michael Andersson, and Joachim Karlsson. 2002. A feasibility study of automated natural language requirements analysis in market-driven development. Require. Eng. 7, 1 (2002), 20--33.
[89]
Faiza Allah Bukhsh, Zaharah Allah Bukhsh, and Maya Daneva. 2020. A systematic literature review on requirement prioritization techniques and their empirical evaluation. Comput. Standards Interfaces 69 (2020), 103389.
[90]
Aimin Zhou, BoYang Qu, Hui Li, ShiZheng Zhao, Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan, and Qingfu Zhang. 2011. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art. Swarm Evolution. Comput. 1, 1 (2011), 32--49.
[91]
Mark Harman. 2010. Why the virtual nature of software makes it ideal for search based optimization. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, David S. Rosenblum and Gabriele Taentzer (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 1--12.
[92]
Anthony J. Bagnall, Victor J. Rayward-Smith, and Ian M. Whittley. 2001. The next release problem. Info. Softw. Technol. 43, 14 (2001), 883--890.
[93]
E. Robert Bixby, Mary Fenelon, Zonghao Gu, Ed Rothberg, and Roland Wunderling, 1999. Mip: Theory and practice—closing the gap. In Proceedings of the Conference on System Modeling and Optimization (CSMO’99). Springer, M. J. D. Powell and S. Scholtes S. (Eds). 19--49.
[94]
Thomas A. Feo and Mauricio G. C. Resende. 1995. Greedy randomized adaptive search procedures. J. Global Optimiz. 6, 2 (1994), 109--134.
[95]
Moshood Omolade Saliu and Guenther Ruhe. 2007. Bi-objective release planning for evolving software systems. In Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 105--114.
[96]
Y. V. Haimes. 1971. On a bicriterion formulation of the problems of integrated system identification and system optimization. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 1, 3 (1971), 296--297.
[97]
A. Charan Kumari, K. Srinivas, and M. P. Gupta. 2012. Software requirements selection using quantum-inspired elitist multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM’12). IEEE, 782--787.
[98]
Des Greer and Guenther Ruhe. 2004. Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Info. Softw. Technol. 46, 4 (2004), 243--253.
[99]
Chen Li, Marjan Van denAkker, Sjaak Brinkkemper, and Guido Diepen. 2010. An integrated approach for requirement selection and scheduling in software release planning. Require. Eng. 15, 4 (2010), 375--396.
[100]
Juan Li, Liming Zhu, Ross Jeffery, Yan Liu, He Zhang, Qing Wang, and Mingshu Li. 2012. An initial evaluation of requirements dependency types in change propagation analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Evaluation 8 Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE’12). IET, 62--71.
[101]
Paolo Tonella, Angelo Susi, and Francis Palma. 2013. Interactive requirements prioritization using a genetic algorithm. Info. Softw. Technol. 55, 1 (2013), 173--187.
[102]
Huihui Zhang, Shuai Wang, Tao Yue, Shaukat Ali, and Chao Liu. 2017. Search and similarity based selection of use case scenarios: An empirical study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23, 1 (2017), 87--164.
[103]
Muhammad Aasem, Muhammad Ramzan, and Arfan Jaffar. 2010. Analysis and optimization of software requirements prioritization techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Emerging Technologies (ICIET’10). IEEE, 1--6.
[104]
Paula Laurent, Jane Cleland-Huang, and Chuan Duan. 2007. Towards automated requirements triage. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE, 131--140.
[105]
Claes Wohlin and Aybüke Aurum. 2005. Engineering and Managing Software Requirements. Springer Science 8 Business Media, Berlin.
[106]
Paolo Avesani, Cinzia Bazzanella, Anna Perini, and Angelo Susi. 2005. Facing scalability issues in requirements prioritization with machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05). IEEE, 297--305.
[107]
Gerald Kotonya and Ian Sommerville. 1998. Requirements engineering: Processes and techniques. John Wiley 8 Sons, Chichester.
[108]
Persis Voola and A. Vinaya Babu. 2012. Requirements Uncertainty Prioritization Approach: A Novel Approach for Requirements Prioritization. Software Engineering: An International Journal (SEIJ) 2, No. 2 (2012), 37--49.
[109]
Roseanna W. Saaty. 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 9, 3–5 (1987), 161--176.
[110]
Vittorio Cortellessa, Ivica Crnkovic, Fabrizio Marinelli, and Pasqualina Potena. 2008. Experimenting the automated selection of cots components based on cost and system requirements. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 14, 8 (2008), 1228--1255.
[111]
Dean Leffingwell and Don Widrig. 2000. Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston.
[112]
Joachim Karlsson, Claes Wohlin, and Björn Regnell. 1998. An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Info. Softw. Technol. 39, 14–15, 939--947.
[113]
Raja Masadeh, Amjad Hudaib, and Abdullah Alzaqebah. 2018. Wgw: A hybrid approach based on whale and grey wolf optimization algorithms for requirements prioritization. Adv. Syst. Sci. Appl. 18, 2 (2018), 63--83.
[114]
Seyedali Mirjalili and Andrew Lewis. 2016. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 95 (2016), 51--67.
[115]
Seyedali Mirjalili, Seyed Mohammad Mirjalili, and Andrew Lewis. 2014. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 69 (2014), 46--61.
[116]
Abdullah Alzaqebah, Raja Masadeh, and Amjad Hudaib. 2018. Whale optimization algorithm for requirements prioritization. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS’18). IEEE, 84--89.
[117]
R. Vijay Anand and M. Dinakaran. 2018. Whalerank: An optimisation based ranking approach for software requirements prioritisation. International J. Environ. Waste Manage. 21, 1 (2018), 1--21.
[118]
Ankita Gupta and Chetna Gupta. 2018. CDBR: A semi-automated collaborative execute-before-after dependency-based requirement prioritization approach. J. King Saud University-Comput. Info. Sci. Available online 7 October 2018 (Article In Process).
[119]
Heena Ahuja and Usha Batra, 2018. Performance enhancement in requirement prioritization by using least-squares-based random genetic algorithm. In Innovations in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Singapore, B. Panda, S. Sharma, and U. Batra (Eds). 251--263.
[120]
Man Zhang, Tao Yue, Shaukat Ali, Bran Selic, Oscar Okariz, Roland Norgre, and Karmele Intxausti. 2018. Specifying uncertainty in use case models. J. Syst. Softw. 144 (2018), 573--603.
[121]
Betty H. C. Cheng, Pete Sawyer, Nelly Bencomo, and Jon Whittle. 2009. A goal-based modeling approach to develop requirements of an adaptive system with environmental uncertainty. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, Berlin, 468--483.
[122]
Jon Whittle, Pete Sawyer, Nelly Bencomo, Betty H. C. Cheng, and Jean-Michel Bruel. 2010. Relax: A language to address uncertainty in self-adaptive systems requirement. Require. Eng. 15, 2 (2010), 177--196.
[123]
Pete Sawyer, Nelly Bencomo, Jon Whittle, Emmanuel Letier, and Anthony Finkelstein. 2010. Requirements-aware systems: A research agenda for re for self-adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference. IEEE, 95--103.
[124]
Rick Salay, Marsha Chechik, Jennifer Horkoff, and Alessio Di Sandro. 2013. Managing requirements uncertainty with partial models. Require. Eng. 18, 2 (2013), 107--128.
[125]
Rick Salay, Michalis Famelis, and Marsha Chechik. 2012. Language independent refinement using partial modeling. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Fase 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 7212, J. de Lara and A. Zisman (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 224--239.
[126]
Michalis Famelis and Stephanie Santosa. 2013. Mav-Vis: A notation for model uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE’13). IEEE, 7--12.
[127]
Naeem Esfahani and Sam Malek. 2013. Uncertainty in self-adaptive software systems. In Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II, R. de Lemos, H. Giese, H. A. Müller. and M. Shaw (Eds). Springer, Berlin, 214--238.
[128]
Tao Yue, Lionel C. Briand, and Yvan Labiche. 2015. aToucan: An automated framework to derive uml analysis models from use case models. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24, 3 (2015), Article No.: 13.
[129]
Tao Yue, Lionel C. Briand, and Yvan Labiche. 2013. Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: Approach and experiments. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22, 1 (2013), Article No.: 5
[130]
Man Zhang, Bran Selic, Shaukat Ali, Tao Yue, Oscar Okariz, and Roland Norgren, 2016. Understanding uncertainty in cyber-physical systems: A conceptual model. In Proceedings of the Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA’16). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 9764, A. Wąsowski and H. Lönn H. (Eds). Springer, Cham, 247--264.
[131]
Ahmed Al-Emran, Puneet Kapur, Dietmar Pfahl, and Guenther Ruhe. 2010. Studying the impact of uncertainty in operational release planning—An integrated method and its initial evaluation. Info. Softw. Technol. 52, 4 (2010), 446--461.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)MR${}^{2}$ 2-KG: A Multi-Relation Multi-Rationale Knowledge Graph for Modeling Software Engineering Knowledge on Stack OverflowIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.340310850:7(1867-1887)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Evaluating Search-Based Software Microbenchmark PrioritizationIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.338083650:7(1687-1703)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A Fuzzy AHP-based Quantitative Framework to Prioritize the Crowd-Based Requirements2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C)10.1109/QRS-C63300.2024.00090(680-691)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Uncertainty-wise Requirements Prioritization with Search

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
    ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 30, Issue 1
    Continuous Special Section: AI and SE
    January 2021
    444 pages
    ISSN:1049-331X
    EISSN:1557-7392
    DOI:10.1145/3446626
    • Editor:
    • Mauro Pezzè
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    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: 31 December 2020
    Accepted: 01 June 2020
    Revised: 01 June 2020
    Received: 01 November 2019
    Published in TOSEM Volume 30, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Requirements prioritization
    2. multi-objective search algorithm
    3. uncertainty

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)58
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
    Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)MR${}^{2}$ 2-KG: A Multi-Relation Multi-Rationale Knowledge Graph for Modeling Software Engineering Knowledge on Stack OverflowIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.340310850:7(1867-1887)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Evaluating Search-Based Software Microbenchmark PrioritizationIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.338083650:7(1687-1703)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2024)A Fuzzy AHP-based Quantitative Framework to Prioritize the Crowd-Based Requirements2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C)10.1109/QRS-C63300.2024.00090(680-691)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2023)Uncertainty-Aware Robustness Assessment of Industrial Elevator SystemsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/357604132:4(1-51)Online publication date: 27-May-2023
    • (2023)A novel hybrid requirement’s prioritization approach based on critical software project factorsCognition, Technology and Work10.1007/s10111-023-00729-325:2-3(305-324)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
    • (2022)Are elevator software robust against uncertainties? results and experiences from an industrial case studyProceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3540250.3558955(1331-1342)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
    • (2022)Uncertainty and Dependency-wise Requirements Prioritization2022 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)10.1109/CSCI58124.2022.00334(1855-1858)Online publication date: Dec-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
    • (2021)Search-Based Selection and Prioritization of Test Scenarios for Autonomous Driving SystemsSearch-Based Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-88106-1_4(41-55)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2021

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media