publication . Part of book or chapter of book . 2016

The Reassessment of Preferences of Non-Functional Requirements for Better Informed Decision-making in Self-Adaptation

Garcia Paucar, Luis H.; Bencomo, Nelly;
Open Access English
  • Published: 12 Sep 2016
  • Publisher: IEEE
  • Country: United Kingdom
Abstract
Decision-making requires the quantification and trade-off of multiple non-functional requirements (NFRs) and the analysis of costs and benefits between alternative solutions. Different techniques have been used to specify utility preferences for NFRs and decision-making strategies of self-adaptive systems (SAS). These preferences are defined during design-time. It is well known that correctly identifying the weight of the NFRs is a major difficulty. In this paper we present initial results of a novel approach that provides a set of criteria to re-assess NFRs preferences given new evidence found at runtime using dynamic decision networks (DDNs). The approach use ...
Related Organizations
Download from
Aston Publications Explorer
Part of book or chapter of book . 2016
29 references, page 1 of 2

[1] S. Liaskos, S. A. McIlraith, S. Sohrabi, and J. Mylopoulos, “Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering,” Requir. Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 227-249, Sep. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0129-9 [OpenAIRE]

[2] M. Salehie and L. Tahvildari, “Self-adaptive software: Landscape and research challenges,” ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 14:1-14:42, May 2009. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1516533.1516538 [OpenAIRE]

[3] B. H. Cheng and et al., “Software engineering for self-adaptive systems,” B. H. Cheng, R. Lemos, H. Giese, P. Inverardi, and J. Magee, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2009, ch. Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap, pp. 1-26.

[4] E. Yuan, N. Esfahani, and S. Malek, “A systematic survey of self-protecting software systems,” ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 17:1-17:41, Jan. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2555611

[5] M. Salama, R. Bahsoon, and N. Bencomo, “Managing trade-offs in self-adaptive software architectures: A systematic mapping study,” in Managing trade-offs in adaptable software architectures, I. Mistrk, N. Ali, J. Grundy, R. Kazman, and B. Schmerl, Eds. Elsevier, 2016. [OpenAIRE]

[6] C. Krupitzer, F. M. Roth, S. VanSyckel, G. Schiele, and C. Becker, “A survey on engineering approaches for selfadaptive systems,” Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 17, Part B, pp. 184 - 206, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157411921400162X

[7] A. Ishizaka and P. Nemery, Multi-criteria decision analysis : methods and software. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://opac.inria.fr/record=b1135342 [OpenAIRE]

[8] J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrogott, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, 2005.

[9] W. E. Walsh, G. Tesauro, J. O. Kephart, and R. Das, “Utility functions in autonomic systems,” in Autonomic Computing, 2004. Proceedings. International Conference on, May 2004, pp. 70-77. [OpenAIRE]

[10] M. Harman, P. McMinn, J. T. de Souza, and S. Yoo, “Empirical software engineering and verification,” B. Meyer and M. Nordio, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2012, ch. Search Based Software Engineering: Techniques, Taxonomy, Tutorial, pp. 1-59. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2184075.2184076

[11] T. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” Inter. Journal of Services Sciences,, 2008.

[12] L. Garcia-Paucar and N. Bencomo, “A survey on preferences of quality attributes in the decision-making for self-adaptive and self-managed systems: the bad, the good and the ugly,” Aston University, Tech. Rep., 2016. [OpenAIRE]

[13] H. Song, S. Barrett, A. Clarke, and S. Clarke, “Self-adaptation with enduser preference: Using run-time models and constraint solving,” in the Intrl. Conference MODELS, USA, 09/2013 2013.

[14] N. Bencomo and A. Belaggoun, “A world full of surprises: bayesian theory of surprise to quantify degrees of uncertainty,” in ICSE, 2014, pp. 460-463. [OpenAIRE]

[15] E. Letier, D. Stefan, and E. T. Barr, “Uncertainty, risk, and information value in software requirements and architecture,” in Proceedings of ICSE, ser. ICSE 2014. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2014, pp. 883-894. [OpenAIRE]

29 references, page 1 of 2
Powered by OpenAIRE Open Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue