Towards a goal‐driven approach to action selection in self‐adaptive software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Self‐adaptive software is a closed‐loop system, since it continuously monitors its context (i.e. environment) and/or self (i.e. software entities) in order to adapt itself properly to changes. We believe that representing adaptation goals explicitly and tracing them at run‐time are helpful in decision making for adaptation. While goal‐driven models are used in requirements engineering, they have not been utilized systematically yet for run‐time adaptation. To address this research gap, this article focuses on the deciding process in self‐adaptive software, and proposes the Goal‐Action‐Attribute Model (GAAM). An action selection mechanism, based on cooperative decision making, is also proposed that uses GAAM to select the appropriate adaptation action(s). The emphasis is on building a light‐weight and scalable run‐time model which needs less design and tuning effort comparing with a typical rule‐based approach. The GAAM and action selection mechanism are evaluated using a set of experiments on a simulated multi‐tier enterprise application, and two sample ordinal and cardinal action preference lists. The evaluation is accomplished based on a systematic design of experiment and a detailed statistical analysis in order to investigate several research questions. The findings are promising, considering the obtained results, and other impacts of the approach on engineering self‐adaptive software. Although, one case study is not enough to generalize the findings, and the proposed mechanism does not always outperform a typical rule‐based approach, less effort, scalability, and flexibility of GAAM are remarkable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".