RANCANGAN KAJIAN FAKTOR USAHA DALAM MEMBANGUN PANDUAN PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT LUNAK SEDERHANA, AKURAT, DAN DINAMIS

Abstrak. Panduan dalam membangun Perangkat Lunak (selanjutnya disebut PL) yang sederhana, akurat, dan dinamis merupakan sebuah proses pemikiran yang kompleks.  Banyak faktor yang mempengaruhinya diantaranya adalah usaha (biaya, waktu, dan tim), konsep, metode, kondisi, dan lingkungan pengembangan PL. Usaha PL dan proses estimasi biaya dalam proyek rekayasa PL merupakan komponen yang sangat penting. Keberhasilan atau kegagalan proyek sangat tergantung pada keakuratan usaha dan jadwal estimasi(5). Manajemen proyek perangkat lunak adalah salah satu kegiatan penting dalam proses pengembangan PL. Banyak proyek pengembangan PLgagal karena buruknya pengelolaan proyek. Tujuan utama dari software tim manajemen proyek adalah untuk menghitung apa yang perlu dihitung, mengukur apa yang perlu diukur dan mempersiapkan parameter terukur untuk terus memantau dan mengelola proyek pengembangan PL(11). Estimasi usaha PL adalah salah satu yang penting pada tahap awal dari siklus hidup pengembangan PL, khususnya ketika rincian persyaratan tidak dapat diidentifikasi dengan jelas(13).   Kata Kunci: Fuzzy Tahani, Sistem Pendukung Keputusan, Penilaian Kinerj

Predicting SMT solver performance for software verification

The approach Why3 takes to interfacing with a wide variety of interactive and automatic theorem provers works well: it is designed to overcome limitations on what can be proved by a system which relies on a single tightly-integrated solver. In common with other systems, however, the degree to which proof obligations (or “goals”) are proved depends as much on the SMT solver as the properties of the goal itself. In this work, we present a method to use syntactic analysis to characterise goals and predict the most appropriate solver via machine-learning techniques. Combining solvers in this way - a portfolio-solving approach - maximises the number of goals which can be proved. The driver-based architecture of Why3 presents a unique opportunity to use a portfolio of SMT solvers for software verification. The intelligent scheduling of solvers minimises the time it takes to prove these goals by avoiding solvers which return Timeout and Unknown responses. We assess the suitability of a number of machinelearning algorithms for this scheduling task. The performance of our tool Where4 is evaluated on a dataset of proof obligations. We compare Where4 to a range of SMT solvers and theoretical scheduling strategies. We find that Where4 can out-perform individual solvers by proving a greater number of goals in a shorter average time. Furthermore, Where4 can integrate into a Why3 user’s normal workflow - simplifying and automating the non-expert use of SMT solvers for software verification

Predicting SMT solver performance for software verification

The approach Why3 takes to interfacing with a wide variety of interactive and automatic theorem provers works well: it is designed to overcome limitations on what can be proved by a system which relies on a single tightly-integrated solver. In common with other systems, however, the degree to which proof obligations (or “goals”) are proved depends as much on the SMT solver as the properties of the goal itself. In this work, we present a method to use syntactic analysis to characterise goals and predict the most appropriate solver via machine-learning techniques. Combining solvers in this way - a portfolio-solving approach - maximises the number of goals which can be proved. The driver-based architecture of Why3 presents a unique opportunity to use a portfolio of SMT solvers for software verification. The intelligent scheduling of solvers minimises the time it takes to prove these goals by avoiding solvers which return Timeout and Unknown responses. We assess the suitability of a number of machinelearning algorithms for this scheduling task. The performance of our tool Where4 is evaluated on a dataset of proof obligations. We compare Where4 to a range of SMT solvers and theoretical scheduling strategies. We find that Where4 can out-perform individual solvers by proving a greater number of goals in a shorter average time. Furthermore, Where4 can integrate into a Why3 user’s normal workflow - simplifying and automating the non-expert use of SMT solvers for software verification

Evaluating an automated procedure of machine learning parameter tuning for software effort estimation

Software effort estimation requires accurate prediction models. Machine learning algorithms have been used to create more accurate estimation models. However, these algorithms are sensitive to factors such as the choice of hyper-parameters. To reduce this sensitivity, automated approaches for hyper-parameter tuning have been recently investigated. There is a need for further research on the effectiveness of such approaches in the context of software effort estimation. These evaluations could help understand which hyper-parameter settings can be adjusted to improve model accuracy, and in which specific contexts tuning can benefit model performance. The goal of this work is to develop an automated procedure for machine learning hyper-parameter tuning in the context of software effort estimation. The automated procedure builds and evaluates software effort estimation models to determine the most accurate evaluation schemes. The methodology followed in this work consists of first performing a systematic mapping study to characterize existing hyper-parameter tuning approaches in software effort estimation, developing the procedure to automate the evaluation of hyper-parameter tuning, and conducting controlled quasi experiments to evaluate the automated procedure. From the systematic literature mapping we discovered that effort estimation literature has favored the use of grid search. The results we obtained in our quasi experiments demonstrated that fast, less exhaustive tuners were viable in place of grid search. These results indicate that randomly evaluating 60 hyper-parameters can be as good as grid search, and that multiple state-of-the-art tuners were only more effective than this random search in 6% of the evaluated dataset-model combinations. We endorse random search, genetic algorithms, flash, differential evolution, and tabu and harmony search as effective tuners.Los algoritmos de aprendizaje automático han sido utilizados para crear modelos con mayor precisión para la estimación del esfuerzo del desarrollo de software. Sin embargo, estos algoritmos son sensibles a factores, incluyendo la selección de hiper parámetros. Para reducir esto, se han investigado recientemente algoritmos de ajuste automático de hiper parámetros. Es necesario evaluar la efectividad de estos algoritmos en el contexto de estimación de esfuerzo. Estas evaluaciones podrían ayudar a entender qué hiper parámetros se pueden ajustar para mejorar los modelos, y en qué contextos esto ayuda el rendimiento de los modelos. El objetivo de este trabajo es desarrollar un procedimiento automatizado para el ajuste de hiper parámetros para algoritmos de aprendizaje automático aplicados a la estimación de esfuerzo del desarrollo de software. La metodología seguida en este trabajo consta de realizar un estudio de mapeo sistemático para caracterizar los algoritmos de ajuste existentes, desarrollar el procedimiento automatizado, y conducir cuasi experimentos controlados para evaluar este procedimiento. Mediante el mapeo sistemático descubrimos que la literatura en estimación de esfuerzo ha favorecido el uso de la búsqueda en cuadrícula. Los resultados obtenidos en nuestros cuasi experimentos demostraron que algoritmos de estimación no-exhaustivos son viables para la estimación de esfuerzo. Estos resultados indican que evaluar aleatoriamente 60 hiper parámetros puede ser tan efectivo como la búsqueda en cuadrícula, y que muchos de los métodos usados en el estado del arte son solo más efectivos que esta búsqueda aleatoria en 6% de los escenarios. Recomendamos el uso de la búsqueda aleatoria, algoritmos genéticos y similares, y la búsqueda tabú y harmónica.Escuela de Ciencias de la Computación e InformáticaCentro de Investigaciones en Tecnologías de la Información y ComunicaciónUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Sistema de Estudios de Posgrado::Ingeniería::Maestría Académica en Computación e Informátic