APPLICATION OF ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE BASED GENETIC ALGORITHM AND FUZZY TOPSIS IN DECISION MAKING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/a9dp8r77Keywords:
Architectural Knowledge, Genetic Algorithm, Decision Making, Fuzzy TOPSISAbstract
Architectural knowledge is important for the architecting process, as it improves the quality of the software architecture evaluation process and the architecture itself [18]. All the stakeholders need to obtain relevant architectural knowledge in making design decisions. It has been stated that the major challenge in assessing software design is an exact description of the quality characteristics and specific knowledge about the design decisions. Though many qualitative architecture assessment methods are available, a quantitative evaluation method is needed to evaluate the candidate architectures over a set of architectural design characteristics. Software architecture evaluation framework addresses the competing objectives of cost minimization and quality maximization between different architectural options. Due to the uncertainty in the judgment for design quality characteristics, architectural knowledge based fuzzy genetic algorithm framework is developed for accessing quality attributes is developed to assist the selection of the underlying architectural designs. A new multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method , Architectural knowledge based fuzzy Genetic Algorithm and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution(FGA-TOPSIS) is proposed to describe the quality requirements of the envisioned system which forms the basis for the comparison and selection criteria. Experimental results obtained indicate that FGA-TOPSIS can be used as a feasible and effective a multi criteria decision making approach for architecture selection under partial or incomplete information (uncertainty).
Downloads
References
1. Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R. “Software Architecture in Practice.” SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998).
2. Roy, B., Graham, T.C.N. “Methods for Evaluating Software Architecture: A Survey.” p. 82, School of Computing TR 2008-545, Queen’s University (2008).
3. Clements, Paul, Rick Kazman, Mark Klein. “Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies.” Addison-Wesley Professional; ISBN 0-201-70482X (2002).
4. G. Abowd, L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, L. Northrop, and A. Zaremski, "Recommanded Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation," SEI, Carnegie Mellon University CMU/SEI-96-TR-025, (1997).
5. Rick Kazman, Len Bass, Gregory Abowd and Mike Webb, “SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 81-90, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/publications. html #reports, (1994).
6. R. Kazman, M. Klein and P. Clements, “ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation,” Technical report, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/ ata_method.html.
7. “CBAM: Cost Benefit Analysis Method,” Technical report, http://www.sei. cmu. edu/ata/ products_services /cbam.html.
8. PO Bengtsson, “Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis,” Ph.D. Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Dissertation series No 2002-2, (2002).
9. Thomas J. Dolan, “Architecture Assessment of Information-System Families,” Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Feb. (2002).
10. Nord, Robert L., Mario R. Barbacci, Paul Clements, Rick Kazman, Mark Klein. “Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the cost benefit analysis method (CBAM).”
No. CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038. Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering INST, (2003).
11. M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, L. Lundberg and M. Mattsson, “A Method for Understanding Quality Attributes in Software Architecture Structures,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 819-826, July (2002).
12. Li, Min, and Yu Jun Ma. "Determination of Weight Values for Assessment Indexes of Engineering Materials Based on Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Method." Advanced Materials Research 680 , pp. 109-112, (2013).
13. M.B. Javanbarg, C. Scawthorn, J. Kiyono, B. Shahbodaghkhan, Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization, Expert System with Applications 39,
pp. 960–966, (2012).
14. Calabrese, Armando, Roberta Costa, and Tamara Menichini. "Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry." Expert Systems with Applications 40, no. 9 pp. 3747-3755, (2013).
15. Yue, Zhongliang. "TOPSIS-based group decision-making methodology in intuitionistic fuzzy setting." Information Sciences 277, pp. 141-153, (2014).
16. Aleti, B. Buhnova, L. Grunske, A. Koziolek, and I. Meedeniya, “Software Architecture Optimization Methods: A Systematic Literature Review,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 658-683, May (2013).
17. Dhaya, C., and G. Zayaraz. "Fuzzy based Quantitative Evaluation of Architectures using Architectural Knowledge." International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology (2012).
18. D. L. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, (1989).
19. Hwang C. L., Yoon, K. “Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.” Springer-Verlag, New York, (1981).
20. Ertugrul, _I, Karakasoglu, N. “Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods.” Expert Systems with Applications 36, no. 1, 702-715, (2009).
21. Wang, Ying-Ming, Taha Elhag. “Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment.” Expert systems with applications. 31, no. 2,pp. 309-319, (2006).
22. David Plans Casal. “Advanced Software Development for Web Applications.” Technical Report TSW0505, JISC Technology and Standards Watch, (2005).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
