Uncertainty-wise Requirements Prioritization with Search

Huihui Zhang, Man Zhang, T. Yue, Sajid Ali, Yan Li
{"title":"Uncertainty-wise Requirements Prioritization with Search","authors":"Huihui Zhang, Man Zhang, T. Yue, Sajid Ali, Yan Li","doi":"10.1145/3408301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":7398,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","volume":"59 1","pages":"1 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3408301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

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.
不确定的需求优先级搜索
需求评审是一种在实践中确保需求质量的有效技术,特别是在安全关键领域(例如,航空电子系统、汽车系统)。在这种情况下,由于时间和财政预算的限制,典型的需求审查过程通常会对需求进行优先级排序,例如,在审查过程的早期对具有较高实现成本的需求进行优先级排序。然而,这样的需求实现成本通常是由缺乏(未来)需求实现场景知识的涉众估算的,这会导致成本超支的不确定性。在本文中,我们明确地考虑了这样的不确定性(量化为成本超支概率),当基于这样的假设对需求进行优先级排序时,具有更高重要性的需求,对其他需求的依赖数量更多,以及更高的实现成本将以更高的优先级进行审查。受此启发,我们为不确定性需求优先化制定了四个目标:最大化需求的重要性、需求依赖性、需求的实现成本和成本超支概率。这四个目标被集成为我们基于搜索的不确定性需求优先化方法的一部分,并带有工具支持,称为URP。我们评估了6种多目标搜索算法(MOSAs)(即NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOCell, SPEA2, IBEA和PAES)以及随机搜索(RS),使用3个真实数据集(即RALIC, Word和ReleasePlanner数据集)和19个综合优化问题。结果表明,所选择的mosa均能解决需求优先级问题,且性能明显优于RS,其中IBEA对三个数据集优先级顺序中前10%的优先级需求的排列效率优于RS 40%以上。此外,IBEA在解的收敛性方面表现最好,而NSGA-III在考虑非支配解的收敛性和多样性方面表现最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信