Application of fuzzy-MOORA method: Ranking of components for reliability estimation of component-based software systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Component-based software system (CBSS) development technique is an emerging discipline that promises to take software development into a new era. As hardware systems are presently being constructed from kits of parts, software systems may also be assembled from components. It is more reliable to reuse software than to create. It is the glue code and individual components reliability that contribute to the reliability of the overall system. Every component contributes to overall system reliability according to the number of times it is being used, some components are of critical usage, known as usage frequency of component. The usage frequency decides the weight of each component. According to their weights, each component contributes to the overall reliability of the system. Therefore, ranking of components may be obtained by analyzing their reliability impacts on overall application. In this paper, we propose the application of fuzzy multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis, Fuzzy-MOORA. The method helps us find the best suitable alternative, software component, from a set of available feasible alternatives named software components. It is an accurate and easy to understand tool for solving multi-criteria decision making problems that have imprecise and vague evaluation data. By the use of ratio analysis, the proposed method determines the most suitable alternative among all possible alternatives, and dimensionless measurement will realize the job of ranking of components for estimating CBSS reliability in a non-subjective way. Finally, three case studies are shown to illustrate the use of the proposed technique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".