MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047550520 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2013.6671307

Improving SOA antipatterns detection in Service Based Systems by mining execution traces

2013· article· en· W2047550520 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Nayrolles, Naouel Moha, Petko Valtchev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMaintainabilityQuality of serviceService-oriented architectureService (business)OASIS SOA Reference ModelReusabilityData miningSoftware engineeringDistributed computingSoftwareWeb serviceOperating systemComputer networkProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service Based Systems (SBSs), like other software systems, evolve due to changes in both user requirements and execution contexts. Continuous evolution could easily deteriorate the design and reduce the Quality of Service (QoS) of SBSs and may result in poor design solutions, commonly known as SOA antipatterns. SOA antipatterns lead to a reduced maintainability and reusability of SBSs. It is therefore important to first detect and then remove them. However, techniques for SOA antipattern detection are still in their infancy, and there are hardly any tools for their automatic detection. In this paper, we propose a new and innovative approach for SOA antipattern detection called SOMAD (Service Oriented Mining for Antipattern Detection) which is an evolution of the previously published SODA (Service Oriented Detection For Antpatterns) tool. SOMAD improves SOA antipattern detection by mining execution traces: It detects strong associations between sequences of service/method calls and further filters them using a suite of dedicated metrics. We first present the underlying association mining model and introduce the SBS-oriented rule metrics. We then describe a validating application of SOMAD to two independently developed SBSs. A comparison of our new tool with SODA reveals superiority of the former: Its precision is better by a margin ranging from 2.6% to 16.67% while the recall remains optimal at 100% and the speed is significantly reduces (2.5+ times on the same test subjects).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207